Orissa High Court
Sk. Badre Alam And Ashok Kumar Das vs Dealer Selection Board And Ors. And ... on 7 March, 2002
Author: P.K. Misra
Bench: P.K. Misra
JUDGMENT R.K. Patra, J.
1. From Kargil to Kanyakumari, when our Constitution recognizes only one domicile i.e. domicile in India, selection of a person as a retail outlet dealer is sought to be nullified on the ground that he is not a resident of a particular revenue district. Such a ground is available to be urged because the advertisement required that the applicant for the proposed opening of outlet in the district of Jajpur should be the resident of that very district.
2. The selection of Sanjeev Parida as retail outlet dealer in respect of petrol and H.S.D. for Sathipur in the district of Jajpur is the subject matter of challenge in both the writ petitions. O.J.C. No. 11826 of 2001 has been filed by Ashok Kumar Das in which said Sanjeev Parida has been arrayed as opposite party No. 4. Sk. Badre Alam has filed O.J.C. No. 16033 of 2001 in which Sanjeev Parida is opposite party No. 6. Both the cases being analogous, they were heard together and are disposed of by this common order.
3. An advertisement was published on behalf of Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited in the local dailies dated 6.8,2000 inviting applications for appointment of retail outlet dealer in respect of petrol and H.S.D. at Sathipur in the revenue district of Jajpur. The petitioners in both the writ petitions and Sanjeev Parida duly submitted their applications pursuant to the advertisement. The sole ground on which the selection of Sanjeev Parida is challenged by the petitioners is that he being a resident of revenue district of Bhadrak is not eligible to be selected as paragraph 2(d) of the advertisement required that the applicant should be the resident of the revenue district of Jajpur.
4. Pursuant to the notice, the contesting opposite parties appeared and filed their respective counter affidavit. Sanjeev Parida in his counter affidavit asserts that he is the resident of Haveli Bazar in Jajpur town (district Jajpur),
5. ShriG. P. Mohanty, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in OJC No. 16033 of 2001 vehemently contended that Sanjeev Parida is a resident of the revenue district of Bhadrak and not the resident of revenue district of Jajpur. His further submission is that the said Sanjeev Parida has business in his own district of Bhadrak and his selection as dealer in another district results in concentration of wealth in one hand which should be discouraged.
In support of his contention that said Sanjeev Parida is the resident of the revenue district of Bhadrak, Shri Mohanty relied on the following documents:
(i) Certificates of registration of vehicles (Indica Car and Motor-cycle) wherein the address of Sanjeev Parida has been noted as Kumbharia, Via-Akhuapada, District-Bhadrak.
(ii) Voters' list of Bhandaripokhari Assembly Constituency in the district of Bhadrak wherein the name of Sanjeev Parida finds place.
(iii) Certificate issued by the Income-tax authority showing that Sanjeev Parida is an income tax assessee under Bhadrak Circle.
Shri Mohanty also submitted that no reliance should be placed on the resident certificate granted by the Tahasildar as it was obtained on 21.9.2000 after publication of the advertisement.
6. Shri Mohapatra, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in OJC No. 11826 of 2001 submitted that fraud was practised by Sanjeev Parida on the Dealer Selection Board, in as much as, he has business at different places and could be able to obtain a resident certificate from the Tahasildar to the effect that he is a resident of the district Jajpur.
7. The case of Sanjeev Parida is that although the native place of his father is village-Kumbharia in the district of Bhadrak, he (Sanjeev Parida) is a resident of Jajpur town. In support of his case that he is a resident of the district of Jajpur, he pressed into service the following documents :
(i) Resident certificate granted by the Tahasildar, Jajpur in Miscellaneous Certificate Case No. 8946 of 2000.
(ii) Voters' list of Jajpur Assembly Constituency of the years 1988, 1995 and 2001 in which his name finds mention.
(iii) Consumer card of cooking gas in which his address has been indicated as Haveli Bazar, Jajpur.
(iv) Consumer card for essential commodities.
(v) Income certificate granted by the Chartered Accountant describing him to be a resident of Haveli Bazar, Jajpur Town.
(vi) B. Com. Certificate from v. N. College, Jajpur and LL. B. Certificate as a student of Biraja Law College, Jajpur.
(vii) Certificate of S.D.O. Telecom to the effect that he has got a telephone No. 22676 at Haveli Bazar, Jajpur.
8. We may state that the Government of India in the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas have issued guidelines for selection of dealers. The Dealer Selection Board (hereinafter referred to as 'D.S.B.') is the agency through which selection is conducted. Learned counsel appearing for the D.S.B. produced before us the relevant records. On perusal of the records, we find that on the basis of the documents it was satisfied that Sanjeev Parida is the resident of the Haveli Bazar, Jajpur town in the district of Jajpur. The most important document is the resident certificate dated 21.9,2000 granted by the Tahasildar, Jajpur certifying that he is a resident of Haveli Bazar, Jajpur town (district Jajpur). It is true that in the documents referred to by Shri Mohanty, the address of Sanjeev Parida has been noted as Kumbharia, Via-Akhuapada in the district of Bhadrak, but those documents by themselves cannot establish that he is not a resident of Haveli Bazar, Jajpur town. One may get one's vehicle registered at different places for different reasons, one may become an assessee in a particular circle for his entire life although he may be residing at a different place. We also do not find any basis to accept the submission of Shri Mohapatra that Sanjeev Parida practised fraud on the D.S.B. by producing the resident certificate from the Tahasildar, Jajpur.
At this stage, we may examine the contention of Shri Mohanty that Sanjeev Parida obtained the resident certificate from the Tahasildar, Jajpur on 21.9.2000 after the advertisement was published, and as such, it should not be relied upon. We do not find any merit in this. The advertisement which was published on 6.8.2000 postulated that the applications should reach on or before 29,9.2000. Therefore, the aforesaid certificate dated 21.9.2000 having been obtained prior to the last date indicated in the advertisement, no exception can be taken to it. Besides this, from the records of D.S.B. we find that as some objection was raised throwing doubt about the resident certificate of Sanjeev Parida, the D.S.B. conducted an inquiry by an investigating team. In course of inquiry it was found that the Tahasildar's resident certificate was actually granted on 21.9.2000 in Miscellaneous Certificate case No. 8946 of 2000. The finding of the investigating team clearly lends support to the case that Sanjeev Parida is a resident of district Jajpur.
9. As indicated above, the D.S.B. on the basis of the materials available with it accepted that Sanjeev Parida is the resident of revenue district of Jajpur. This Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction does not suit in appeal over the decision of the Tribunals. Judicial review under Article 226 cannot be converted into appeal. It is directed not against the decision, but is confined to examination of decision making process. On perusal of the proceedings of the D.S.B., we are satisfied that there was no illegality committed by it in the decision making process. Therefore, the ultimate decision taken by it cannot be faulted with.
10. With regard to the other contention of Shri Mohanty that selection of Sanjeev Parida as a dealer has resulted in concentration of wealth in one hand, we may state that such a contention is purely academic in nature. Although Article 226 confers on us wide powers in the matter of issuing writs, the power has to be exercised on well known principles.
For the reasons aforesaid, we do not find any merit in either of the writ petitions. Accordingly, both are dismissed.
P.K. Misra, J.
I agree.