Chief Justice's Court
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 20297 of 2018 Petitioner :- Anil Kumar Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Pradeep Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Archana Singh
Hon'ble Dilip B. Bhosale,Chief Justice Hon'ble Suneet Kumar,J.
Heard Mr. Rajesh Kumar Singh and Mr. Pradeep Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mrs. Archana Singh, learned counsel appearing for the State-respondents.
The principal relief sought by the petitioner reads thus:
"Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondent Tehsildar to enquire into the validity of domicile certificate issued in favour of respondent no. 6 namely Ravi Rao for the Village Fatehpur District Mau in the light of the fact that name of respondent no. 6 namely Ram Rao has been deleted from the family register of Village Fatehpur as reflected in Annexure No.13."
Petitioner and the sixth respondent pursuant to an advertisement issued by the Indian Oil Corporation (for short 'Corporation'), applied for LPG dealership under Scheduled Caste category at village Fatehpur. Sixth respondent was selected, whereas, candidature of the petitioner came to be rejected for the reason that petitioner did not have the requisite plot and bank deposit on the last date of submission of the application form.
It appears that the candidature of the sixth respondent who was selected for the dealership was assailed by the petitioner, inter alia, on the ground that the sixth respondent was not a resident of village Fatehpur and had obtained caste and domicile certificate by fraud and misrepresentation. The certificates issued in favour of the sixth respondent came to be cancelled by order dated 11.09.2012 passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate (SDM), Mohammadabad Gohna, District Mau. Consequently, the candidature of the sixth respondent came to be cancelled. Aggrieved, the order of the SDM was challenged by the sixth respondent in appeal. The District Magistrate allowed the appeal and restored the caste and domicile certificate. Thereafter, the sixth respondent assailed the order of the Corporation and sought grant of the dealership in a petition bearing Writ - C No. 45498 of 2013 (Ravi Rao vs. Union of India and 3 others), which came to be disposed of finally on 14 November 2017. Relevant portion of the order is extracted:
"The case of the petitioner is that there was an advertisement inviting applications for grant of Rajiv Gandhi LPG Vitrak at Fatehpur under the scheduled caste category by the Indian Oil Corporation and other petroleum companies (annexure no. 1 to the writ petition). The petitioner applied for the same in view of the advertisement with regard to the award of Rajiv Gandhi LPG Vitrak at Fatehpur under the scheduled caste category, which was at serial no.312 in the advertisement dated 26.3.2011. In view of the guidelines, the petitioner applied and he was eligible for the same. The candidature of the petitioner was not considered merely on the ground of a complaint. It was found that the petitioner did not belong to scheduled caste category as his caste certificate dated 11.4.2011 issued by the Tehsildar and the domicile certificate issued by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate dated 7.4.2011 were cancelled vide order dated 11.9.2012 by Sub- Divisional Magistrate, Mohammadabad, Mau. The District Magistrate allowed the appeal vide order dated 8.4.2015 and the matter was remanded. Thereafter, vide order dated 21.1.2016, the domicile certificate was found valid, the same was restored and after verification vide order dated 3.9.2016, the caste certificate was also found valid and the same was restored. Hence, the petitioner was entitled for allotment of LPG Vitrak under the said scheme under the scheduled caste category.
Learned counsel for respondent-Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. informed that Rajiv Gandhi LPG Vitrak scheme has been stopped, however, since the matter was sub-judice, hence, Rajiv Gandhi LPG Vitrak at Fatehpur under the scheduled caste category has been left out and has not been allotted to any other person.
In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, since the candidature of the petitioner was rejected on the ground that his caste and domicile certificates were not valid and subsequently the same were found valid and restored and as such the authority concerned respondent no. 3 is directed to consider the application/candidature of the petitioner afresh for grant of Rajiv Gandhi LPG Vitrak at Fatehpur under the scheduled caste category by passing a reasoned order preferably, within six weeks from the date of communication of the present order.
With the aforesaid direction, the writ petition is disposed of finally.
Interim order stands discharged."
Pursuant thereof, LPG dealership of the sixth respondent was restored by the Corporation and since then the sixth respondent is operating the dealership.
It is sought to be urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner that name of the sixth respondent has wrongly been entered in the Family Register. Further, it is reported by the Assistant Development Officer that the sixth respondent is not resident of village Fatehpur. It is in this backdrop, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks re-enquiry regarding the validity of the domicile certificate issued in favour of the sixth respondent.
Learned counsels appearing for the State-respondent and the Corporation have raised preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the writ petition. It is contended that petitioner is not an aggrieved person for the reason that the candidature of the petitioner was considered on merit and rejected by the Corporation for the reason that the petitioner did not fulfil the terms and conditions for grant of LPG dealership. In the circumstances, under the garb of the order passed by the revenue authorities the Corporation is not bound to cancel the dealership of the sixth respondent at the behest of the petitioner, who has no right whatsoever. Further, learned standing counsel appearing for the State-respondent submits that the domicile certificate issued to the sixth respondent has been found to be valid by the District Magistrate and the same is not under challenge. Further, the instant writ petition has not been filed in public interest.
On specific query, learned counsel for the petitioner is not in a position to refute the fact that the domicile certificate issued to the sixth respondent has not been cancelled.
In the circumstances, we have no option but to dismiss the writ petition. Order accordingly.
Order Date :- 31.5.2018 Mukesh Kr.
(Suneet Kumar,J) (Dilip B. Bhosale,CJ)