Bhimashi and Others vs Indian Oil Corporation Limited and Others

B. Veerappa, J.—1. The petitioner in writ petition No. 106109/2014 have sought for quashing of the impugned communication letter dated 7.2.2014 issued by the respondent No. 1-Senior Area Manager of the Indian Oil Corporation Limited, Belgaum vide Annexure-A; the certificate dated 17.12.2013 issued by the 5th respondent vide Annexure-B and a writ of mandamus directing respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to grant authorization distribution of Rajeev Gandhi LPG Vitrak (RGGLV) at Todalbagi village in favour of the petitioner and etc.

It is the case of the petitioners that they are agriculturist & business persons by profession and permanent residents of Todalbagi village in Jamkhandi Taluk, Bagalkot District having land properties and house properties in the said village. The father of the petitioners, grandfathers and family root of the petitioners are not permanent residents of Todalbagi village. It is the contention of the petitioners that the 6th respondent Smt. Neela is a resident of Bangalore. Her school records, voter''s list, identity card of Malleswaram constituency, driving licence, bank pass book, all the documents clearly indicate that she is the resident of Bangalore. It is further contended that she is the daughter of the 8th respondent, who is presently working as Assistant Commissioner of Police (ACP) Kubban Park Police Station, Bangalore and the 7th respondent is sitting MLC and permanent resident of Jamkhandi, the 8th respondent is the 7th respondent''s brother''s son and husband of the 6th respondent serving in KPTCL, Bangalore. The entire family members of the 6th respondent have been residing along with 8th respondent''s house/quarters. It is the further case of the petitioners that the 1st respondent issued a paper publication calling upon the applications from the eligible applicants for grant of authorization/dealership to run ''Rajeev Gandhi Gramin LPG Vitrak'' (RGGLV) Distribution Agency at Todalbagi village. One of the qualification at item No. 3(b) prescribes that the applicant shall be resident of any one of the area of Grama Panchayat/Taluka area for which RGGLV distribution is sought to be established and preference shall be given to the applicant, who is permanent resident of Village Panchayat or Taluk Panchayat. It is the further case of the petitioners that the petitioner''s grandfather and there father are all permanent resident of Todalbagi village and the petitioners are being permanent resident of Todalbagi village, eligible and qualified applicant having all eligibility has submitted their applications enclosing all necessary documentary records as sought by the authorities including residential certificate issued by the competent authority showing that they are permanent resident of Todalbagi village. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 have verified the application filed by the petitioners including other applications and further sought certain papers from the petitioners and the same have been produced.

The 6th respondent, who is the resident of Bangalore had also made an application by enclosing the documents in which several records have been enclosed including residential certificate of the 6th respondent issued by the Panchayat Development Officer (for short hereinafter referred to as ''PDO''). The said PDO without conducting an enquiry issued a residential certificate to the 6th respondent showing that she is the permanent resident of Todalbagi village. It is contended that the said certificate has been obtained using the political power of the 7th respondent, who is the sitting MLC using his political power. Similarly the 8th respondent who is the father of the 6th respondent using his official police power brought pressure on the PDO. Both 7th and 8th respondents without jurisdiction have unauthorisedly interfered with the affairs of the Panchayat and brought pressure on the PDO on the basis of the which, political influence by the 7th respondent and police influence by the 8th respondent, the PDO has issued an illegal residential certificate.

It is the further contended that the 2nd respondent ought to have rejected the application of the 6th respondent as she has not enclosed the residential certificate issued by the revenue authority. However, the 2nd respondent after receipt of the application, process of selection was done at Belgaum on the basis of lottery on 28.10.2013 and in a lottery, the 6th respondent was selected. The petitioners and other applicants, who are the permanent residents of Todalbagi village have made serious written complaint inter alia contending that the 6th respondent is not the permanent resident of Todalbagi village and she is the resident of Bangalore and hence she is not eligible. There are more than 20 applicants including the petitioners, who have submitted their applications and are residents of Todalbagi village.

After the objection by the petitioners the 2nd respondent directed the 6th respondent to produce her residential certificate issued by the revenue authority. The petitioners and other applicants have submitted their objection to the revenue authorities requesting them not to grant residential certificate to the 6th respondent as she is not the resident of Todalbagi village. Thereafter, the 7th respondent by using his political power and influence dictated the revenue officials i.e., respondent Nos. 3 to 5 to issue residential certificate to the 6th respondent showing her permanent residential place at Todalbagi village. It is at the instance of 7th and 8th respondent, permanent residential certificate has been issued to the 6th respondent and therefore, the petitioners contend that the 6th respondent is not the permanent resident of Todalbagi village and she is the permanent resident of Bangalore and she is not at all an eligible applicant for distribution of ''Rajeev Gandhi Gramin LPG Vitrak'' (RGGLV) Distribution Agency at Todalbagi village. Therefore, they are before this Court for the relief sought for.

The learned Government Advocate has filed statement of objections to the main petition. In para-3 of the statement of objections denying the averments made in the writ petition it is contended that the petitioners have not tendered any objection to the 6th respondent. One Shri Appashi gopal Yadwad had submitted objection and he was called upon to appear before the 5th respondent to put forth his case within 3 days from the date of receipt of notice issued on 5.12.2013, but he had not filed any objection and did not appear and did not submit any documents. The documents produced by the applicant-6th respondent were considered and the statement of the village accountant, Todalbagi who had endorsed to the effect that during enquiry on 28.11.2013, the panchas stated that the 6th respondent is staying in Todalbagi village for the last one year and there is objection from Shri Appashi Gopal Yadwad. The said objector did not appear or submitted any documents showing that the applicant is non-resident of Todalbagi village. The 5th respondent perusing the documents submitted by the applicant i.e., copy of the residential proof issued by the PDO, Todalbagi dated 18.6.2014 - copy of the ration card issued by the Food and Civil Supplies Department, copy of the bank pass book A/c No. 395 issued by the Chief Executive of P.K.P.S., Todalbagi, a copy of the I.D. Card issued by the Jamkhandi Sahakari Bank Niyamit, Jamkhandi, a copy of the Khata extract showing the land held by her issued by the village accountant, Todalbagi, a copy of record of rights of R.S. No. 266 of Todalbagi village and an affidavit sworn to by the applicant before the notary on 5.11.2013 reveal that the 6th respondent is the resident of Todalbagi village and hence, residential certificate was issued on 17.12.2013. Therefore, sought for dismissed the writ petitions.

Learned Counsel for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 have filed their objections denying the averments made in the writ petitions. It is specifically stated that the scrutiny of the applications was made by the Committee. The residence certificate issued by the competent authority as per advertisement requires to be submitted at the time of Field Verification Credentials of the selected candidates. The selection is made on the basis of the draw of lots. Respondent No. 6 was the successful candidate in the draw of lots. She has stated in her application that she is the resident of Todalbagi village and in the draw of lots, she was the successful candidate. There were about 22 eligible applicants including the present petitioners. The table of the eligible candidates dated 25.10.2013, who were the residents of Gram Panchayat in question was produced was displayed on the Notice Board as per Annexure-R1. It is also contended that after the selection of the 6th respondent, four complaints were received by different persons/all the petitioners about the residential certificate of respondent No. 6. As per Brochure (guidelines) for selection of ''Rajeev Gandhi Gramin LPG Vitrak'' (RGGLV) Distribution Agency at Todalbagi village one of the eligibility criteria is that the applicant should be the resident of either of the Gram Panchayat of the advertised RGGLV location or of the Taluka of the advertised RGGLV location. For the selection of RGGLV candidates, first preference will be given to the applicants residing in the Gram Panchayat failing to which the applicants residing in the concerned Taluka of the advertised RGGLV location shall be considered. Hence, the selection of the 6th respondent was in accordance with the Brochure for selection of ''Rajeev Gandhi Gramin LPG Vitrak'' (RGGLV) Distribution Agency at Todalbagi village and on the basis of the certificate issued by the Deputy Tahasildar, which is also confirmed by the Tahsildar subsequently.

On the basis of the complaints made by the petitioners along with Rs. 1,000/- as per regulation NO.20.1 of the Brochure for Selection of ''Rajeev Gandhi Gramin LPG Vitrak'' (RGGLV) Distribution Agency at Todalbagi village, since the complaints were submitted at the stage of field verification, the same were handed over the field verification committee as per Regulation No. 20.6, who has conducted the investigation by making the above mentioned correspondences and accordingly, closed the complaints and Rs. 1,000/- of each of the petitioners was forfeited. Therefore, sought for dismissal of the writ petitions.

The 6th respondent also has filed an application for vacating stay contending that she is the resident of Todal bagi village of Jamakhandi Taluk. Her father owned the agricultural land and a house in the said village. For the purpose of prosecuting the higher education, she had taken the admission in Maharani Laxmi Ammanni College for Woman, Bangalore and has completed her graduation in the year 2007. After completion of her education, she wanted to look after her lands and hence, she started residing in Todal village of Jamakhandi Taluka. She owns the land in Todalabagi village and a copy of the record of rights of Sy. No. 266 of Todalbagi village is produced as Annexure-R1. Since the Indian Oil Corporation had called for an application for the dealership to run ''Rajeev Gandhi Gramin LPG Vitrak'' (RGGLV) Distribution Agency at Todalbagi village, she had submitted her application. Even though she is married and her husband is working in KPTCL, she is residing in the said village looking after her lands. She visits her husband''s place now and then and sometimes her husband also visits her. The petitioners and other applicants were present when the selection was done through a lottery system at Belgaum on 28.6.2013 and the name of the 6th respondent was announced in a draw in presence of all the applicants. All the petitioners are aware of the fact that she has been selected for the LPG dealership in the draw held on 28.10.2013. After the selection, she has invested huge sum of money for the purpose of construction the building and for providing other infrastructure for establishing the LPG dealership in Todalbagi village. The petitioners or any other candidate did not raise any objection for her selection to the post of LPG dealership for Todalbagi village at the time of draw or within 30 days from that date. After her selection, the petitioners and others raised objections after depositing Rs. 1,000/- and suppressing the same, the petitioners herein have filed the writ petitions. The petitioners have not lodged any complaint within 30 days. They have lost the right to challenge the selection of 6th respondent. Therefore, the present writ petitions are not maintainable.

It is her further case that petitioners and others have kept quiet for a period of 8 months and during the said period the 6th respondent has invested huge sum of money for construction of the building and also for providing infrastructure for running the LPG dealership in Todalbagi village. She has further contended that the Tahsildar, Jamakhandi after conducting an enquiry submitted a report to the Indian Oil Corporation that the 6th respondent is the resident of Todalbagi village which is marked as Annexure-R3 and the report of the Deputy Tahsildar, Jamakhandi is marked as Annexure-R4; the panchanama conducted by the Deputy Tahsildar is marked as Annexure-R5 and the copy of the pass book of the 6th respondent for having an account in the Primary Agriculture Credit Cooperative Society is marked as Annexure-R6. Respondent No. 6 has shifted her residence from Bangalore to Todalbagi village and her name has been found in the voters list of Todalbagi village. She submits that even before calling for an application by the Indian Oil Corporation, she had shifted and started residing in Todalbagi village. The Voters I.D. of respondent No. 6 is marked as Annexure-R7. She has also produced a copy of the shareholders voter''s I.D. for having the shares in the Jamakhandi Co-operative Bank, Jamakhandi as Annexure-R8. Therefore, she sought to dismiss the petitions with exemplary costs.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties to the lies.

The main contention urged by the learned Counsel Sri Shivaraj P. Mudhol and Sri P.N. Hatti, for the petitioners that the 6th respondent is not the resident of Todalbagi village and she is the resident of Bangalore City and therefore, she is not eligible for the dealership of ''Rajeev Gandhi Gramin LPG Vitrak'' (RGGLV) Distribution Agency at Todalbagi village the instance of respondent Nos. 7 and 8, the PDO has issued the certificate and subsequently, the Tahsildar has issued the residential certificate, which cannot be accepted. Therefore, the learned Counsel for the petitioners contended that the allotment of dealership in favour of the respondent No. 6 by respondent Nos. 1 and 2 is bad in law and contrary to the records. Therefore they sought to allow the writ petitions and direction to respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to grant authorisation of ''Rajeev Gandhi Gramin LPG Vitrak'' (RGGLV) Distribution Agency at Todalbagi village in favour of the petitioners.

Per contra, Smt. Vidyavati, learned AGA vehemently contended that after detail inquiry, the Tahasildar on the basis of the material documents produced morefully as stated in the statement of objections i.e., Voters I.D., R.T.C. entry, residential proof issued by the PDO, ration card issued by the food and Civil Supplies Department, bank pass book, I.D. card issued by the Sahakari Bank Niyamit, Jamkhandi and record of rights which clearly indicate that she is the resident of Todalbagi village and after considering the entire material, has issued the certificate -Annexure-B and before issuing the said certificate, notice was issued to the general public inviting the objections. Admittedly, all the petitioners have not filed any objections. Therefore, she sought for dismissal of the writ petitions with exemplary costs.

Sri C.V. Angadi, Sri V.P. Kulkarni, learned Counsel for other respondents sought to justify the impugned action contending that after considering the entire material on record and after considering the eligibility criteria/as per the Brochure for Rajeev Gandhi Gramin LPG Vitrak (RGGLV), the selection of 6th respondent has been made which is in accordance with law. Therefore, they sought to dismiss the writ petition.

Sri Hukkeri, learned Counsel for respondent No. 7-Member of Legislative Council contended that respondent No. 7 has not at all made any influence to issue the certificate in favour of the 6th respondent and there is no material produced by the petitioners except bald allegations taking the rivalry in the constituency. Therefore, he sought to dismiss the writ petitions.

I have given my anxious consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the entire material on record.

It is an admitted fact that respondent Nos. 1 and 2 invited the general public for grant of authorisation/dealership in Rajeev Gandhi Gramin LPG Vitrak (RGGLV) in Todalbagi village. It is also not in dispute that the petitioners and others about 20 applicants were eligible candidates of the Todalbagi Grama Panchayat as per Annexure-R1.

Therefore draw of lots was made in terms of Regulation 9.2 of the Brochure for Selection of Rajeev Gandhi Gramin LPG Vitrak (RGGLV) which reads as under:

"9.2. Selection will be done by draw of lot first out of all eligible applicants who are residents of the Gram Panchayat (or corresponding administrative/revenue structure as applicable in the respective State/UT) of the advertised RGGLV location. In case if no eligible candidate from the Gram Panchayat is found or the list of eligible candidates from the Gram Panchayat is exhausted, then only the draw would be conducted from the list of eligible candidates residing in the Taluka/Tehsil (or the correspondent administrative/revenue structure as applicable in the respective State/UT) of the advertised location"

In the draw, the 6th respondent was selected. Though several contentions urged by both learned Counsel for the petitioners that respondent No. 6 is not the resident of Todalbagi Village, the same cannot be accepted for the simple reason that the learned AGA representing on behalf of the Tahsildar/State and other officials specifically contended that the 6th respondent is the resident of Todalbagi village and all the documents stated supra as well as the mahazar drawn by the officials during the course of their official business cannot be disputed. Though a complaint was made by the petitioners that 6th respondent is not the resident of Todalbagi village in terms of Annexure-B, subsequently, the 2nd respondent/Corporation after getting the information, confirmed that the 6th respondent is the resident of the said village as per Annexure-J dated 25.1.2014. The entire material documents produced by the 6th respondent, respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and official respondent Nos. 3 to 5 clearly indicate that the 6th respondent is the resident of Todalbagi village and she is eligible for distribution of Rajeev Gandhi Gramina LPG Vitrak agency at Tadal bagi village.

Apart from that, it is stated in the statement of objections by the learned Counsel for respondent No. 6 that the writ petition filed after a period of 8 months, from the date of her selection and the 6th respondent has invested huge amount for the building and infrastructure for distribution of LPG. She has specifically contended that her father is the permanent resident of Todalbagi village and for the purpose of studies, she went to Bangalore and after pursuing her studies, she came back to her native place to take care of the agricultural lands. In response to the application called by the Indian Oil Corporation, she applied for the distribution of LPG and after considering the entire material on records, the selection was made and the same is in accordance with law. Though a rejoinder was filed by the petitioners denying all the allegations, they have not produced any material documents contrary to the material documents produced by the 6th respondent as well as official respondents to prove that 6th respondent is not the resident of Todalbagi village. The material documents produced by the State Government/Tahsildar, Jamkhandi in terms of para-3 of the statement of objections, clearly reveal that the 6th respondent is the resident of Todalbagi village and she is eligible. Therefore, the contentions of the petitioners that the 6th respondent is not the resident of Todalbagi village, cannot be accepted. There are abundant materials on record which depict that 6th respondent is the resident of Todalbagi village and she is eligible for allotment in terms of the notification issued by the respondent No. 1 & 2.

In view of the aforesaid reason taking into consideration of the entire material on record, respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are justified in allotting the distribution of Rajeev Gandhi Gramin LPG Vitrak (RGGLV) in favour of respondent No. 6 same is in accordance terms of the with the notification issued by the Corporation, in accordance with the Brochure for selection of Rajeev Gandhi Gramin LPG Vitrak (RGGLV) as well as in accordance with law.

The material produced by the private respondent Nos. 2, 7 and 8 so also the official respondent Nos. 3 to 5 clearly indicate that the 6th respondent is the resident of Todalbagi village. Therefore, the petitioners are not entitled for any relief before this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, all the writ petitions are dismissed with costs.

In view of the dismissal of the main matter, I.A.I/2016 does not survive for consideration.