AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Notice (Annexure A-5) of Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited stipulates allotment of L.P.G. Distributorship to Freedom Fighters. Accordingly, applications were received. Among them Shri V.P. Shrivastava and Shri K.N. Dixit were also applicants. The distributorship was allotted in favour of respondent No. 3, Shri K.N. Dixit, which was challenged by the petitioner through Writ Petition No. 4015/1994. By order of 13-11-2000, the learned Single Judge has rejected the writ petition on two grounds, namely; the case is not covered by the guidelines for allotment of distributorship and no right flows, after the death of V.P. Shrivastava, in favour of his legal heirs.
Shri Arvind Chouksey, learned Counsel for appellants, reiterated the submissions once raised before the learned Single Judge. It is submitted that respondent No. 3 is not a Freedom Fighter. On being asked, what appellants mean by "Freedom Fighter", explanation is one who is receiving freedom fighter''s pension from the Central Government. To buttress this submission, learned Counsel refers to Annexure A-26, item 16. We are not convinced by this submission. Notice of Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited (Annexure A-5) provides for allotment of distributorship to Freedom Fighters. No stipulation has been brought to our notice nor can be there, that distributorship can be allotted only to those freedom fighters who are in receipt of Freedom Fighter''s Pension from the Central Government. Item 16 (Annexure A-26) speaks about the proof. From this it cannot be spelt out that eligibility for allotment of distributorship is confined to only the pensioners of Central Government.
Who is a Freedom Fighter ?
One who has participated in the freedom struggle and qualifies under the Freedom Fighter Rules for pension. There is no doubt that respondent No. 3 is a freedom fighter. He has been allowed Freedom Fighter''s Pension by the State of Madhya Pradesh vide Annexure R-3 (f) PPO/SP 212. On the basis of award of Freedom Fighter''s Pension and certification, Ministry of Railways (Railway Board) has issued First Class complimentary pass dated 13-11-2001 valid upto 12-11-2002. Therefore, eligibility of respondent No. 3 cannot be doubted for seeking distributorship of L.P.G.
The next question is whether petitioner could be allotted distributorship when Justice S. Awasthy (Retd.) was Chairman of the Board, since petitioner alleges bias in the allotment of the distributorship being a relation. It has been explained that when the case of petitioner was considered by the Board, Justice Awasthy did not participate and remaining members could constitute quorum for interviewing the candidate and merit was arrived at on the basis of marks allotted by the participating members. With this background, there is no merit in this allegation and the same is rejected.
Further, it is contended that the respondent No. 3 did not participate in the interview. There is no substance in this submission. Candidates have applied for the distributorship of L.P.G., their merits could be examined on the basis of facts supplied by them, in absentia since there is no bar in doing so. However, respondent No. 3 explained that due to heavy rain, he could not reach early and after explanation was offered, he was allowed to participate.
Next question is whether the appellants can maintain the petition/ appeal after the death of V.P. Shrivastava. The learned Single Judge has decided against them. Apart from rejecting the appeal on grounds recorded hereinabove, we are of the opinion that cause of action does not survive to the appellants because the allotment had not been made in their favour. In case it had been in favour of their husband/father, they could defend the same on being challenged by any party. Consequently, the appeal is also liable to be rejected on this ground as well.
Consequently, we find no merit in this appeal and the same is rejected.