Gujarat High Court
Gitaben Ranjitsinh Parmar vs Hindustan Petroleum Corporation ... on 11 January, 2017
Author: Mohinder Pal
Bench: Mohinder Pal
C/SCA/2318/2013 ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2318 of 2013
==========================================================
GITABEN RANJITSINH PARMAR....Petitioner(s)
Versus
HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LIMITED THRO GENERAL
MANAGER & 3....Respondent(s)
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR ASHISH M DAGLI, ADVOCATE for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR RAJAN D SHAH, ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 4
MS MINOO A SHAH, ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 1 - 3
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOHINDER PAL
Date : 11/01/2017
ORAL ORDER
1. The present petition is filed against the rejection of the application of the petitioner for retail outlet dealership of Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited.
2. By way of this petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the validity of the order passed by the respondents whereby application of the petitioner for seeking dealership of the retail outlet has been denied by the respondent- Corporation. Aggrieved from the decision of the respondent-Corporation, the present petition has been preferred.
Page 1 of 3HC-NIC Page 1 of 3 Created On Sat Aug 12 07:00:23 IST 2017 C/SCA/2318/2013 ORDER
3. In pursuance to the advertisement issued by the respondents on 17.9.2011, the petitioner applied for the dealership of retail outlet of petrol pump.
4. It is submitted by the learned advocate for the petitioner that the petitioner got married on 26.1.2004 as per Hindu custom and accordingly her name was changed from Gitaben Popatbhai Sisodiya to Gitaben Ranjitsinh Parmar. Petitioner has submitted the copy of PAN Card, copy of Ration Card along with the affidavit dated 5.10.2012. That the respondent-Corporation has rejected the application of the petitioner on the ground that affidavit was made on 5.10.2012 which is after the last date of submission of the application. Learned advocate for the petitioner has requested that the present petition may be allowed by quashing the decision of the respondents-Corporation.
5. On the other hand, learned advocate for the respondents-Corporation has submitted that application of the petitioner has been rejected mainly on the ground that name of the petitioner did not tally with other documents attached with the application at the relevant time for considering the application for retail outlet.
6. During the pendency of the petition, at the behest of the Court, notice was also sent to the person to whom the petrol pump has been alloted.
7. This Court has considered the submissions of both the sides. It is brought to my notice that after rejection of the application of the petitioner, petrol pump has been alloted to somebody else who is running the same since 2013. Now, after a gap of 4/5 years, it will be too late Page 2 of 3 HC-NIC Page 2 of 3 Created On Sat Aug 12 07:00:23 IST 2017 C/SCA/2318/2013 ORDER to reverse the situation specifically under the circumstances, when respondent No.4 is already running a petrol pump.
8. Under the circumstances, the present petition deserves to be dismissed and is, hereby, dismissed. Rule is discharged.
(MOHINDER PAL, J.) ashish Page 3 of 3 HC-NIC Page 3 of 3 Created On Sat Aug 12 07:00:23 IST 2017