Smt. Madhumita Saha (Seth) vs Union Of India & Ors on 14 March, 2011

[Cites 1, Cited by 1]

Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)

Smt. Madhumita Saha (Seth) vs Union Of India & Ors on 14 March, 2011

Bench: Jayanta Kumar Biswas

                                              1




                      In The High Court At Calcutta
                               Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction
                                        Appellate Side


Present : The Hon'ble Mr Justice Jayanta Kumar Biswas

                                 W.P.No.3821(W) of 2011
                               Smt. Madhumita Saha (Seth)
                                           -vs-
                                  Union of India & Ors.

        Mr. Arun Kumar Maity
        Mr. Biprangshu Laskar
        Ms. Sumana Mu8kherjee                               ....for the petitioner

        Mr. Manewendra Singh Yadav                                  ....for IOL

Heard on : March 14, 2011

Judgment on : March 14, 2011

        The Court : The petitioner in this art.226 petition dated February 24,
2011 is seeking the following principal relief:
       "(a)   A Writ of Mandamus may be issued commanding the concerned
respondent and/or respondents concerned to cancel the advertisement dated

27.10.2010 published in the "Ananda Bazar Patrika" for appointment of LPG Distributor in Nutanhat Area (Deulia, Mahartuba and Khurtuba) under Rajib Gandhi Gramin LPG Vitarak Yojona and not to take any steps on the basis of the said Advertisement for appointment of Distributor in Nutanhat area (Deulia, Mahartuba and Khurtuba)."

Counsel argues as follows. The impugned advertisement has been published by Indian Oil Corporation Limited for appointing an LPG distributor within 100 metres from the petitioner's existing LPG distributorship granted under the Rajiv Gandhi Gramin LPG Vitarak Yojona. If within a distance of 100 metres another distributor is appointed, then the petitioner's business will no longer remain viable. The decision to appoint another LPG distributor within 100 metres from the petitioner's distributorship is vitiated by arbitrariness, unreasonableness and unfairness.

Counsel for Indian Oil Corporation submits as follows. LPG distributors are appointed under the scheme for specific villages. The petitioner has been appointed for a particular village and the advertisement in question has been published inviting application for appointment for another village.

There is nothing to show that the appointment of another LPG distributor, even if it is assumed that the distributor will have his business place within 100 metres from the business place of the petitioner, is contrary to any provision of law. The petitioner appointed as an LPG distributor has no legal right to say that another distributor meant for another village should not be appointed on the grounds that the new distributor's proposed business place located within 100 metres from her business place will make her business non-viable.

For these reasons, I dismiss the petition. No costs. Certified xerox.

(Jayanta Kumar Biswas, J.) sb

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)