AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
I. A. No. 9194 of 2013, which is a petition for condonation
of delay of 38 days, is allowed for the reasons indicated in the said
Interlocutory Application.
Appeal is thereafter taken up on merits.
The submission of learned counsel for the appellant
against the impugned order, dated 25.09.2013, is that the Learned
Single Judge committed error by dismissing his writ, as there is
evidence that the private-respondent no. 3 has not genuinely and
bonafidely declared his actual place of residence since if he is not a
resident of Singheshwar, selection ought not to have been made for
grant of distributorship of LPG under Rajiv Gandhi Gramin LPG
Vitrak Scheme.
The Court has gone through the materials as well as
discussions made by the Learned Single Judge. He has dealt with
all those evidences which show about the actual residence of the
private-respondent. Cumulative effect of such a consideration is that
the allegation made by the appellant against the selection of private-
respondent on the ground of non-residence was rejected and the
selection was held to be valid.
The Learned Single Judge has also taken note of a
decision with regard to the residence issue, which was dealt with by
the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of Bhagwan Dass and anr. Vs.
Kamal Abrol and ors., reported in (2005) 11 SCC 66. Paragraph 11 of the
said decision has been reproduced by the Learned Single Judge
and held that there are words known as "de facto" and "de jure"
residence. Such a concept is not alien in law. Therefore, because of
declaration with regard to the communication of the address given in
some of the applications, it does not make private-respondent to be
resident of that place.
The fact is that he is resident of Singheshwar, his family
members and inheritance all lies at the village Singheshwar and
therefore, such selection of respondent no. 3 cannot be said to be
illegal or irrational.
Appeal has no merit. It is dismissed.