Patna High Court
Jitendra Kumar Dabgar vs The Chairman,Indian Oil Corpor on 3 May, 2016
Author: Vikash Jain
Bench: Vikash Jain
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.20951 of 2011
========================================================
Jitendra Kumar Dabgar S/o Sri Suresh Ram Dabgar Village + Post +
Police Station Karakat, District Rohtas-802212, Bihar.
.... .... Petitioner
Versus
1. The Chairman, Indian Oil Corporation Limited, G-9, Ali Yavar Jung
Marg, Bandra (East) Mumbai-400051.
2. Deputy General Manager, (LPG) Bihar State Office, Lok Nayak Jai
Prakash Bhawan, 5th Floor, Dak Bunglow Chouk, Patna.-800 001
3. Sr. Area Manager, Patna AO. Bihar State Office, Lok Nayak Jai Prakash
Bhawan, 5th Floor, Dak Bunglow Chowk, Patna 800 001
.... .... Respondents
========================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner : Mr. Anshay Bahadur Mathur, Advocate
For the Respondents : Mr. Anil Kumar Jha, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Sanat Kumar Mishra, Advocate
========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIKASH JAIN
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date: 03-05-2016
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned senior
counsel for the respondent Corporation.
2. The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the
letter No. BSO/LPG/RGGLV/Karakat dated 09.05.2011 (Annexure-3)
issued by the respondent no. 2 rejecting the claim of the petitioner for
grant of dealership under Rajiv Gandhi Gramin LPG Vitrak Scheme,
2009 ("RGGLV" hereinafter) for location at Karakat, District Rohtas,
State-Bihar, under SC category; and for connected reliefs.
Patna High Court CWJC No.20951 of 2011 dt.03-05-2016 2
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the
earlier round of litigation, the petitioner had approached this Court in
CWJC No. 1014 of 2011, which was disposed of on 04.02.2011 with a
direction to the respondent Corporation to consider the application of
the petitioner dated 15.04.2010 along with the land possession
certificate dated 25.09.2010 and decide the matter accordingly. It is
submitted that the land possession certificate duly shows the situation
of the petitioner's land to be in Mauza Misraulia (Karakat), Thana No.
545 and thus it is proved that the land is situated in Karakat Mauza
within the area of Karakat. It is therefore submitted that the
Corporation has wrongly held the petitioner to be ineligible in terms of
its letter dated 09.05.2011 impugned herein.
4. Learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the
respondent Corporation submits that pursuant to the directions of this
Court as aforesaid, the petitioner's representation dated 15.04.2010
together with the land possession certificate were considered in the
backdrop of the materials available in order to determine the
petitioner's eligibility based on the situation of the land in question. It
was found that the petitioner's application was liable for rejection in
limine at the very outset considering that the relevant column
requiring details regarding the situation of the aforesaid land had been
left blank. The petitioner subsequently has submitted the rent receipt
and the land possession certificate, however, no documents of title
Patna High Court CWJC No.20951 of 2011 dt.03-05-2016 3
whatsoever have been furnished. Further, it is stated that the
petitioner's land is situated in Mauza Misraulia, Thana No. 545. This
has been stated by the petitioner himself in his affidavit submitted with
his application and is thus binding and conclusive as regards the
petitioner. It is stated that the land of the petitioner therefore falls
outside the advertised location which was admittedly the town/village
Karakat. Attention is also invited to the list of block-wise villages of
Block Karakat whereby village Karakat appeared at sl. no. 71 which is
quite distinct from village Misraulia appearing at sl. no. 103 of the said
list. It is also pointed out that the village Karakat falls at Thana No. 543
whereas village Misraulia falls at Thana No. 545.
5. Having heard the parties and on consideration of the
materials on record, this court finds the writ petition to be devoid of
any merit. From the plethora of materials placed on behalf of the
Corporation including the block-wise list of villages, it is evident that
village Misraulia falls under the Block Karatkat but is quite separate
and distinct from village Karakat. It is also borne out by the petitioner's
own statement made in the affidavit that his land situated in village
Misraulia and not in village Karakat, and hence it falls outside the
advertised location. This Court therefore, finds no fault in the action
with the respondent Corporation in having re-advertised the location
for village Karakat. It is stated to have already been commissioned on
03.11.2015with a letter of award being issued to one Sri Ajay Singh.
Patna High Court CWJC No.20951 of 2011 dt.03-05-2016 4
6. The writ petition accordingly stands dismissed.
(Vikash Jain, J) Chandran AFR/NAFR AFR CAV DATE Uploading 06.05.2016 Date Transmission Date