Karnataka High Court
Ravishankar R vs The Union Of India on 23 October, 2018
Bench: Raghvendra S.Chauhan, B.M.Shyam Prasad
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF OCTOBER 2018
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAGHVENDRA S. CHAUHAN
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. M. SHYAM PRASAD
WRIT APPEAL NO.2899/2018 (GM-RES)
BETWEEN:
RAVISHANKAR R
S/O. RAMACHANDRA REDDY,
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
R/AT HALANAYAKANAHALLI VILLAGE,
CARMELRAM POST, VARTHUR HOBLI,
BENGALURU-560 035.
... APPELLANT
(BY SRI. ASHOK HARANAHALLI, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. AJOY KUMAR PATIL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE UNION OF INDIA
MINISTRY OF PETROLEUM & NATURAL GAS,
NEW DELHI-110 001,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.
2. INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED
WITH ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT
G9, ALI YAVAR JUNG MARG,
BANDRA (EAST),
MUMBAI-400 051,
REPRESENTED BY ITS
DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER (LPG).
2
ALSO AT:
INDIAN OIL BHAVAN
NO.29, P KALINGA RAO ROAD, (MISSION ROAD),
BENGALURU-560 027.
3. MRS. N. JANHAVI
W/O. BHAGATH REDDY,
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
R/AT NO.431/H,
1ST 'B' MAIN, 1ST 'B' CROSS,
8TH CROSS, KORAMANGALA,
BENGALURU-560 095
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI NAGARAJA H. R., CGC FOR R-1)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT,1961 PRAYING TO ALLOW THE
ABOVE WRIT APPEAL BY SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND
ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN
W.P.NO.35149/2010 (GM-RES) DATED 07.09.2018 AND DISMISS
THE SAID WRIT PETITION WITH COSTS.
THIS WRIT APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY,
B. M. SHYAM PRASAD J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Mrs. N. Janhavi - respondent No.3, filed a Writ Petition in W.P. No.35149/2010, seeking quashing of the allotment of LPG Distributorship by the Indian Oil Corporation Limited in favour of Mr. Ravishankar R. - the appellant. The essential ground of challenge was that the appellant had furnished a fake certificate as 3 regards his experience, but the Indian Oil Corporation - respondent No.2, awarded the full "4" marks earmarked for experience based on such fake certificate. Consequentially, the appellant secured higher marks than Mrs. N. Jahnavi, who was awarded only "3" marks for experience. As such, the LPG Distributorship was allotted to the appellant. Mrs. N. Jahnavi therefore concluded that the allotment of LPG Distributorship in favour of the appellant was illegal.
2. The learned counsel for both Mrs. N Janhavi and the appellant relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sajeesh Babu K., Vs. N .K. Santhosh and Others (AIR 2013 SC 141) before the Writ Court to buttress their respective submissions. The Writ Court noted that in the case of Sajeesh Babu K. Vs. N. K. Santhosh and Others, the marks for experience was awarded on the basis of the evaluation of the responses received by the concerned during 4 verification as directed by the Court. Therefore, the Hon'ble Apex court was satisfied with the genuineness of the experience Certificate relied upon in that case. However, the Writ Court concluded that in the present case such verification process was not undertaken and the documents relied upon by the appellant were shrouded. Therefore, the Writ Court directed an enquiry with the following directions:
17. The Corporation is duty bound to verify the genuineness of the information supplied by the 3rd respondent. The 3rd respondent also should be given a fair opportunity to substantiate his claim.
Therefore, the 3 respondent herein shall treat rd this writ petition as a show-cause notice and submit his reply to the 2nd respondent Corporation within a period of ten days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. The 3rd respondent shall not only furnish his reply based on the documents mentioned above, but also take note of all other documents and averments made by the petitioner herein. The 2nd respondent- Corporation shall conduct an enquiry after receiving the reply from the 3rd respondent herein, pass orders in accordance with law, within a period of one month from the date of 5 receipt of the reply from the 3rd respondent herein and furnish a copy to this Court."
3. Mr. Ashok Haranahalli, the learned Senior Advocate appearing for the counsel for the appellant, contended that the finding by the Writ Court that the documents relied upon by the appellant is shrouded and doubtful is unjustified. The learned Senior Advocate further submitted that the direction to hold an enquiry and file a report with the Writ Court on the outcome of the enquiry within thirty days, could be construed as a direction to the officers of the Indian Oil Corporation to decide the contentious issue in a particular manner. As such, the Writ Court could not have disposed of the writ petition with directions as mentioned supra. The learned Senior Advocate also contended that the observation made by the Writ Court, in Para 16, could further prejudice the minds of the officers of the Indian Oil Corporation as the directions 6 issued are to hold an enquiry and file a report with the court in that regard.
4. The writ court in Para 16 has observed thus:
"16. In the light of the discussions above, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner has made out a prima facie case that the agency where the 3rd respondent claimed to have worked was not in existence during the relevant period. The petitioner has contended that the selection process smacks of malafides. The question raised by this Court stands answered in the affirmative.
5. It is trite to state that any observation made by a Court while directing the authorities concerned to hold an enquiry in accordance with law, cannot influence the authorities holding the enquiry. Therefore, it would only be an empty cavil to state that the officers of the Indian Oil Corporation - respondent No. 3 conducting the enquiry, as directed by the Writ Court, could be influenced by any observation in the Writ Court's impugned order. As such, the apprehension expressed on behalf of the appellant in 7 this regard is misplaced and does not afford a cause of action to the appellant to impugn the directions issued by the Writ Court in this intra-court appeal.
6. As such, the writ appeal does not survive for consideration. It is accordingly dismissed.
SD/-
JUDGE SD/-
JUDGE NP/-
nv