Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
2019 Prasun Kanti Mandal vs Union Of India & Ors on 28 June, 2019
Author: Md. Nizamuddin
Bench: Md. Nizamuddin
1
28th June, W.P. 24144 (W) of 2010
2019 Prasun Kanti Mandal
-vs-
Union of India & Ors.
With
) W.P. 20764 (W) of 2012
Sri Kanchan Kumar Sarkar
(BD) -vs-
Union of India & Ors.
Mr. Uttam Kumar Mjumder
Mr. Binoy Kumar Das
... for the Petitioner.
(in W.P. 20764 (W) of 2012
and in W.P.24144 (W) of 2010
... for the private respondent.
Mr. Debapriya Gupta ... for the Petitioner ( in W.P. 24144 (W) of 2010) Mr. S. Yadav ... for the Indian Oil Corporation.
Heard Counsel appearing for the parties.
Both the aforesaid writ petitions are taken up together for final hearing since the same arise out of the common cause of action involving claims of LPG distributorship at Barrackpore Kalyani High Way More, District- North 24 Parganas. The writ petitioners in both the writ petitions are interested parties in the LPG distributorship in question. For convenience and effective adjudication, both the writ petitions are taken up together.
In the first writ petition being W.P. 24144(W) of 2010 petitioner has prayed for a direction upon the respondent No. 3 to accord LPG distributorship in question in his favour claiming to be most suitable candidate in the merit panel after necessary field verification. In the said writ petition respondent Indian Oil Corporation Authority has filed the affidavit-in-opposition. In the first writ 2 petition being W.P. 24144 (W) of 2010 Writ Petitioner, Prasun Kanti Mandal has alleged that the document filed before the Respondent concerned by the first empanelled candidate Sri Kanchan Kumar Sarkar being Writ Petitioner in W.P. 20764 (W) of 2012, relating to his experience certificate is fake and in view of Clause 16.2 of Indian Oil Corporation Brochure Selection of Indane Distributor, writ petitioner Prasun Kanti Mandal is entitled for distributorship in question. In this matter Sri Kanchan Kumar Sarkar, the writ petitioner in W.P. 20764(W) of 2012 was not a party. Subsequently by an order of this Court he was added as a party, who was the first empanelled candidate. The first empanelled candidate Sri Kanchan Kumar Sarkar, filed the writ petition being W.P. 20764 (W) of 2012 making the claim for the dealership in question on the basis of a letter dated 13th April, 2011 being Annexure P-19 to the writ petition, gist of the contents of the said letter is that the disputed papers in question filed by the petitioner is correct and not fake so his case should be considered for the distributorship in question.
Learned counsel appearing in W.P. 24144 (W) of 2010 relies on a letter dated 20th April, 2010 being Annexure P-10 to the writ petition being W.P. 20764(W) of 2012 rejecting the claim of Mr. Kanchan Kumar Sarkar by the Respondent concerned.
Mr. Gupta, learned Counsel appearing in the first writ petition, relies on the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent Indian Oil Corporation of India in W.P. 24144 (W) of 2010 particularly paragraph 3(N) in support of his contention.
Mr. Majumder, learned Counsel appearing in W.P. 20764(W) of 2012 in support of his claim for the LPG distributorship in question has relied on a document being letter dated 13th April, 2011 written by the Under Secretary Government of India, Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas to the Director (Marketing) IOC, Mumbai, requesting the authority concerned to consider the case of the writ petitioner in the light of the District Magistrate's letter which is appearing at pages 72 and 73 being annexure P-18 to the writ petition No. W.P. 3 20764 (W) of 2012. According to Mr.Majumder, this letter is the subsequent development after the letter dated 20th April, 2010 on which Mr. Gupta wants to rely. On perusal of relevant records and after considering the submission of parties, I am of the view that the writ court is not the appropriate forum to adjudicate on the genuineness or validity of the highly disputed documents/certificates in question on the basis of which entitlement of distributorship in question is to be decided.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and nature of grievance involved based on ascertainment of genuineness of the document I dispose both the writ petitions by directing the respondent Deputy General Manager, Indian Oil Corporation being the (LPG) Indian Oil Corporation to consider the case of both the parties and take a final decision in accordance with law and pass a reasoned and speaking order after giving opportunity of hearing to the writ petitioners or their authorised representatives, within twelve weeks from the date of communication of this order. All the issues raised by the parties in the aforesaid writ petitions are kept open. On final decision to be taken by the Deputy General Manager, Indian Oil Corporation being the (LPG) Indian Oil Corporation, about the entitlement of dealership in question he will take expeditious steps under Clause 16 of the Indian Oil Corporation Brochure Selection of Indane Distributor expeditiously and preferably within eight weeks thereafter and shall communicate his decision to the writ petitioners. He will decide the issue on its own merit without being influenced by any observation made herein and decide on the basis of materials available before him.
Since no affidavit-in-opposition have been filed in both the writ petitions all the allegations made therein deemed to have been denied by the parties.
Both the writ petitions being W.P. 24144 (W) of 2010 and W.P. 20764 (W) of 2012 are disposed of with the above directions.
( Md. Nizamuddin, J.) 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54