AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
M.R. Agnihotri, J.—This judgment shall dispose of C. W. P. Nos. 3163 of 1988 and 998 of 1989, as common" questions of facts and law are involved. In the first writ petition, that is C. W, P No. 3163. of 1988 the factual position is as under :- Distributorship of gas agency (Liquified Petroleum Gas) by Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited a Government of India undertaking, controlled by the Ministry of Petroleum, Government of India was to be allotted to unemployed graduates for Kangra town in Himachal Pradesh, according to the conditions of eligibility, as advertised on 13th May, 1985, on the basis of selection to be made by the Chairman, Oil Selection Board (North) new Delhi According to the advertisement, one of the conditions of eligibility was that the unemployed graduate applying for the distributorship should be "resident of Kangra district".
In response to the advertisement a number of persons, including the petitioner and respondent No. 4. Mrs Kamal Abrol, had applied, and after the interview the choice fell in favour of respondent No. 4, It is this allotment of distributor ship in favour of respondent No. 4 which has been challenged in this writ petition solely on the ground that respondent No. 4 Smt. Kamal Abrol, is not a resident of Kangra distict, as the residency certificate produced by her in support of her candidature is not in order.
Efforts have been made by the petitioner to produce voluminous documentary evidence on the record to contend that in fact Smt. Kamal Abrol married to Shri Yash Pal Abrol, was a resident of district Mandi in Himachal Pradesh and it was at that place that her name stood entered in the electoral rolls. A certificate has also been obtained from the Panchayat Secretary of Gram Panchayat, Bir, in district Kangra, to the effect that Smt. Kamal Abrol was not a resident of that village.
In the second petition also, that is, in CWP No. 998 of 1989, this very allotment of distributorship of Liquified Petroleum Gas made in favour of Smt. Kamal Abrol has been challenged by Bhagwan Dass and Ashok Kumar on the same ground that Smt Kamal Abrol was not a resident of district Kangra and almost same and similar documentary evidence has been-produced to substantiate the assertions made in the petition.
In reply to the writ petition, respondents have filed separate affidavits and Smt. Kamal Abrol has produced on record equally voluminous documentary evidence to support her candidature in order to establish that she was in fact a resident of Kangra district and her selection and allotment of distributorship in her favour were quite in order The Oil Selection Board has further stated m their affidavit that proper inquiries had been made by them before making selection of Smt Kamal Abrol and it was only after the authorities were fully satisfied with regard to the residency of the candidates that allotment was made in her favour According to the documentary evidence annexed to the written statement filed by Smt. Kamal Abrol, the position has emerged as under :
(1) Her marriage was solemnised on 1st November, 1977, with Mr. Yash Pal Abrol and the affidavit filed for the purpose of registration of marriage stated that her husband was resident of Village Bir, district Kangra. Therefore, after her marriage, she too became a resident of that very village in district Kangra where her husband had been residing.
(2) The husband of Smt. Kamal Abrol is a permanent resident of village Bir (district Kangra) where he owns ancestral property, landed as well as residential, orchards, etc. The assertion stands evidenced by the certificates issued by the Patwari, Lambardar and Chowkidar of the village.
(3) The husband of the petitioner and other members of the family are members connected with a number of societies and Mandals of Bir village (district Kargra) and her husband and father-in-law have also been share-holders of agricultural, cooperative and industrial estates, including tea factories, ete.
(4) Smt Kamal Abrol before marriage belonged to district Mandi and after graduation and marriage she had been residing in district Kangra and being unemployed graduate was found to be eligible by the Oil Selection Board after thorough inquiries made in the wake of certain complaints filed by the petitioners and other interested persons who had been harassing her to deprive her of her livelihood. The Oil Selection Board having the benefit of advice of a retired Judge of the High Court and senior retired Civil servants had found, after appreciation of adequate relevant material, that Smt Abrol was a resident of district Kangra.
After going through the pleadings of the parties and the document any evidence brought on the record in the form of written statements and having heard the learned counsel, I am of the considered view that a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution is not an appropriate remedy and the High Court is not an appropriate forum for settling disputed questions of fact. In fact, she writ jurisdiction is meant for the enforcement of rights of citizens and not for a establishment of rival claims, by leading evidence. No doubt, it has been held by the Supreme Court as well as this Court that in a given case the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, can exercise jurisdiction for even recording oral evidence in addition to appreciating the documentary evidence for arriving at a certain conclusion where it is satisfied that such a course would be necessary to avoid miscarriage of justice. Those are the cases where writ jurisdiction is invoked by the citizens for the protection of fundamental rights and the jurisdiction is exercised by the Courts to reach injustice wherever it exists, and not in cases where claims and counter-claims of private individuals are staked for obtaining licenses, permits, quotas, agencies, etc. in the field of commercial ventures. Since disputed questions of fact are not be gone into by the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, resort to civil Court is the only appropriate remedy.
Consequently, these writ petitions are dismissed with no order as to costs.