AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Parth Prateem Sahu, J
The present appeal has been filed challenging the order of the learned Single Judge wherein the interference was declined to interdict with the
decision taken by the Respondent No.1/Indian Oil Corporation Limited with respect to the allotment of the LPG distributorship.
The crux of the case is that the Respondent No. 1/India Oil Corporation Limited had issued advertisement for appointment of the distributors under
the Rajiv Gandhi Rural LPG Distributor Scheme. In that advertisement, the location in question has been advertised at serial no. 49 wherein it has
been mentioned that the location will be at Baramkela, Lodhiya, Kanchanpur and Janakpur of Tahsil Baramkela, District Raigarh under open category.
Pursuant to the said advertisement, the Appellant herein also submitted an application for appointment as distributor but his application has been
rejected on the ground that the land proposed by him would not form part of the village or the location mentioned in the advertisement i.e. Baramkela,
Lodhiya, Kanchanpur and Janakpur.
Feeling aggrieved with the rejection of this application, the Appellant approached this Court by filing writ petition with the following prayers:
10.1 That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondents to cancel the notice/proposal dated 19.09.2013 (Annexure P-2) and
republish with correction.
10.2 This Hon'ble Court may issue any writ, direction or order which deem fit in the favour of the petitioner and against the respondents to grate
necessary relief to the petitioner.
10.3 This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ mandamus thereby setting-aside order (Annexure P/1) dated 08.01.2014, issued by
respondent no. 2, whereby candidature of petitioner was rejected and order Annexure P.6. Whereby draw inrespect of LPG Vitrak has been held on
23.02.2015, in the ends of justice.
The learned Writ Court, after considering the pleadings filed by respective parties and also submissions placed on record have held that the
locations mentioned in the advertisement are very specific and the subject land proposed by the Appellant should be situated at the locations mentioned
in the advertisement and further that though the village Kharwani formed part of the Nagar Panchayat, Baramkela, but it does not come within the
specific location i.e. Baramkela, and dismissed the writ petition.
The learned counsel for the Appellant submits that the village Kharwani has been merged with the village Panchayat Baramkela and thereafter, it
has been upgraded to Nagar Panchayat Baramkela by notification dated 03.09.2008 and therefore, the location mentioned in the name of Baramkela
will also include village Kharwani being part of the Nagar Panchayat. Learned counsel also submits that the Writ Court has fallen in error in not
considering the very aspects.
The learned counsel for the Respondent No.1/ India Oil Corporation Limited submits that the locations have been mentioned in the advertisement
very specifically and each villages where the Oil Corporation wants to have their dealer to be appointed was specifically mentioned village wise and
location wise. Merely forming the part of the Nagar panchayat will not meet the condition of having the land to be treated at village Baramkela and
therefore, the learned Single Judge has rightly considered the submissions and has rejected the contentions of the Appellant herein.
We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the materials on record and we have also gone through the records of the
writ petition and also perused the notifications dated 03.09.2008. The perusal of the advertisement Annexure P/2 would show that in the
advertisement, the location has been mentioned as city / village wise and also mentioned the Tahsil and District specifically in the advertisement itself.
Glance of the advertisement will show that it prescribes in 3 rd column name of Location, 4 th column Village / Nagar Panchayat, 5th column name of
Tehsil, 6th column name of District and 7 th column category of applicant. The advertisement makes it clear that name of location when forming part
of Village / Nagar Panchayat, then comes Tehsil and District. Location means particular place or position. In advertisement Annexure P/2 it is
mentioned in column name of location as at S.No. 49 Baramkela Lodhiya, Kanchanpur and Janakpur means the location to be in particular village or
city, only and name of places mentioned in column no. 4, 5, 6, & 7 are other specifications of location. Therefore, the locations which is named in the
advertisement is to be considered for the purpose of allotment of the distributor of the LPG distributor in respect of the said villages only. The area or
the villages which have been mentioned in the advertisement identifying as location cannot be enlarged for any purpose. The learned Single Judge
taking into consideration the other arguments has held thus: ""7. The reading of the said schedule would show that the boundaries of Nagar Panchayat
Baramkela would be the boundaries of existing revenue village and Gram Panchayat Baramkela. When this notification and submission are tested as
against the advertisement, it shows that the advertisement was made for a particular location that of Baramkela and other three places. The
submission of the petitioner that village Kharwani was included by the notification within Barmakela, therefore, the rejection of candidature on the
ground that he do not hold the land at Baramkela cannot be appreciated. In the opinion of this Court, the advertisement would show that it was meant
for rural area and particular locations were advertised, which confined only Baramkela apart from that three other places were named. Even if it is
presumed that village Kharwani was enveloped within the Gram Panchayat Baramkela, considering the rural location for which the advertisement was
made, it was confined to Baramkela location only. Consequently, such location cannot be extended by interpretation as the distribution of LPG should
be closer and nearer to the publication for which it is advertised. The Nagar Panchayat, Baramkela would have other villages too and when the
advertisement was made only for four villages, then the other village which falls out of the advertisement, cannot be treated to be the part of Nagar
Panchayat Baramkela qua the advertisement.
It is for the respondent corporation to decide the location of a particular place. If the petitioner did not have the land at village Baramkela location
itself, the land at village Kharwani cannot be connected by the advertisement for consideration of the right of the petitioner. The dispute raised further
involves the disputed question of facts too. Therefore, the likewise issue which has been decided by this Court in WPC No.901/2011 on 16th of
August, 2011, I am also inclined to follow the ratio laid down in such case to hold that village Kharwani may be included for administrative purposes
within the Nagar Panchayat of Baramkela, but such location cannot be extended to read in between the line of the advertisement that Kharwani
would include Baramkela. Accordingly, I do not find that any relief can be granted to the petitioner. The likewise proposition is supported by the ratio
laid down by the Supreme Court in the matter of Ankur Gupta V. Union of India (2012 SCC OnLine Raj 723), Satyaranjan Mallick Vs. Indian Oil
Corporation Ltd. And others (decided by the Orrisa High Court in W.A. No.145 of 2014 on 30.04.2015) and Manish Kumar Nagar Vs. Union of India
& ors. (decided by the Rajasthan High Court in Civil Writ Petition No.1258 of 2012 on 18.04.2012). The ratio of these cases also apply to the facts of
this case as the object behind the requirement of suitable particular place is to provide better facility to local residents and if in a given city too the city
is extended and the advertisement is made for a particular location then particular location is to be given the importance. When the land offerred by
the petitioner was not at the location advertised by the respondents at specified locations to cater the needs of the general public and when the location
is specific, by deeming provision, the area cannot be extended from the earmarked place. In view of this, I do not find any illegality in decision making
process of the respondents so as to entertain this writ petition.
Considering the pleading and arguments in contexts with the documents placed on record by the parties, we do not find any perversity, illegality in
rationale given by learned Single Judge in its order for dismissing the writ petition.
For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any merit in the submissions made by the Appellant. The appeal being devoid of merit is liable to be and is
accordingly dismissed.