Orissa High Court
Mahejabeen vs Lpg Distributor Selection Committee ... on 19 March, 2024
Author: K.R. Mohapatra
Bench: K.R. Mohapatra
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: MADHUSMITA SAHOO
Designation: Senior Stenographer
Reason: Authentication
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
Date: 20-Mar-2024 17:53:09 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.13222 OF 2003
Mahejabeen .... Petitioner
Mr. Rajesh Kumar Mohapatra, Advocate
-versus-
LPG Distributor Selection Committee .... Opp. Parties
and others
Mr. Srinivas Patnaik, Advocate
(For Opp. Party Nos.1 & 2)
CORAM:
JUSTICE K.R. MOHAPATRA
ORDER
Order No. 19.03.2024
27. 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.
2. The Petitioner in this writ petition seeks to assail the selection of Opposite Party No.3, namely, Sri Hrudaya Ranjan Behera to be appointed as Distributor of LPG for Baliguda block under Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited (for brevity 'BPCL').
3. Mr. Mohapatra, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that pursuant to the advertisement under Annexure-1, the Petitioner along with two others were shortlisted for being selected as Distributor of LPG under BPCL. Although the Opposite Party No.3 does not satisfy the requirements for being appointed as such, he was selected and Letter of Intent (LoI) under Annexure-A/2 (to the counter affidavit of Opposite Party Nos.1 and 2), has been issued.
4. Mr. Mohapatra, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the annual family income of Opposite Party No.3 was more than Rs.2,00,000/- at the relevant time, which violated Clause Page 1 of 3 // 2 // Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: MADHUSMITA SAHOO Designation: Senior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 20-Mar-2024 17:53:09 (d)(gha) of the advertisement under Annexure-1. It is also submitted that the brother of Opposite Party No.3, namely, Sri Manabhanjan Behera-Opposite Party No.3 has been allotted a retail outlet of IOCL, namely, Maa Filling Station near FCI Chakka, Phulbani. Thus, the candidature of Opposite Party No.3 could not have been considered for being appointed as Distributor pursuant to the advertisement under Annexure-1. He, therefore, prays for setting aside the LoI issued in favour of Opposite Party No.3 and to consider his case for being appointed as a Distributor pursuant to the advertisement under Annexure-1.
5. Mr. Patnaik, learned counsel for Opposite Party Nos.1 and 2 vehemently objects to the same. It is his submission that selection process was conducted following due procedure. Considering the income certificate of the family submitted by Opposite Party No.3 and other documents and information submitted, he was selected for being appointed as the Distributor of LPG pursuant to the advertisement under Annexure-1. The document with regard to income of the family of Opposite Party No.3 submitted by the Petitioner relates to the year, 2004. Taking note of the documents available at the time of selection, the Opposite Party No.3 was considered to be appointed as Distributor of LPG. He further submits that the allotment of retail outlet of IOCL to Sri Manabhanjan Behera near FCI Chakka, Phulbani is subsequent to the issuance of LoI in favour of Opposite Party No.3. As such, there is no illegality in selection of Opposite Party No.3.
6. Although Opposite Party No.3 is represented through learned counsel, but none appears at the time of call.
Page 2 of 3// 3 // Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: MADHUSMITA SAHOO Designation: Senior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 20-Mar-2024 17:53:09 7. Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record, it is not clear as to whether the Selection Board had, in fact, made any enquiry with regard to respective annual income of the family of the candidates at the time of selection. Allotment of any retail outlet or distributorship in favour of the family members of Opposite Party No.3 is also a matter of consideration.
8. The writ petition was filed in the year, 2003 and in the meantime twenty-one years have already elapsed. Hence, keeping the matter pending before this Court directing the parties to furnish information for consideration, will not inure to the benefit of any party. In view of the above, this Court while setting aside the LoI issued in favour of Opposite Party No.3, directs the BPCL to consider the candidature of shortlisted candidates afresh giving them an opportunity to produce documents/informations in support of their respective cases and hearing.
9. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of.
10. Interim order dated 18th December, 2003 passed in M.C. No.12876 of 2003 stands vacated.
Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application.
(K.R. Mohapatra)
ms Judge
Page 3 of 3