Heard learned counsel for the parties.
Respondent no. 2-Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. had issued an advertisement for allotment of an agency, which is known as Rajeev Gandhi Gramin L.P.G. Vitarak (RGGLV) in October, 2009 on the terms and conditions mentioned in the advertisement. One of the conditions is that the person seeking agency should own a suitable land at advertised location for LPG godown & showroom.
The word 'own' has been defined to mean as clear ownership title of the property in the name of applicant / family member of the 'Family Unit'. 'Family Unit' has been defined to include a married applicant which shall consist of the applicant, applicant's spouse and unmarried son(s) / daughter(s). 'Family Unit' of an unmarried applicant shall consist of applicant, applicant's parents and applicant's unmarried brother(s) / sister(s).
The petitioner herein applied for the said agency. Insofar as the requirement of land as per the advertisement is concerned, she has relied on an affidavit of her father-in-law that in the event, the petitioner succeeds in getting the agency, he would transfer the land in the name of the petitioner, apart from giving her an amount of Rs. 2.50 lacs for construction of the Godown and Showroom.
The respondent no. 2 intimated to the petitioner by communications dated 17th May, 2010 and 16th August, 2010 that she had not been found to be eligible for RGGLV, as she did not have the land at the advertised location and as the land for Godown as shown at Item No. 9 of the application is in the name of Shri Ram Avtar Gupta, her father-in-law, who did not fall under the definition of family unit as defined in the advertisement.
On behalf of the petitioner, learned counsel submits that the definition of 'Family Unit' in the application is arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
In the first instance, the petitioner, at the time of making application for agency, knew the requirements, even then she chose to take a chance. Having failed, she has now sought to challenge the same. We are of the opinion that the writ petition as filed would not be maintainable and the Court should not exercise its extra ordinary jurisdiction in favour of a party like the petitioner herein.
We may deal with the contention as now raised on behalf of the petitioner herein insofar as the definition of Family Unit is concerned. No doubt, the respondent no. 2 would be State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India and it will be bound by the principles laid down under Article 14 of the Constitution, but at the same time, as has been held by the Supreme Court in its various pronouncement, respondent no. 2 can also act as an private individual in the field of contract. In the instant case, the agency is to be given to a person who owns the land, either in his/her own name or in the name of a member as defined in the Family Unit. The Family Unit is restricted to applicant, applicant's spouse and unmarried son(s) / daughter(s). Admittedly, the petitioner is the daughter-in-law. In other words the wife of 'married son' who does not fall within the definition of family unit.
Question is whether it was open to respondent no. 2 to lay down any such condition. Also whether in such a situation, the land owned by the father-in-law of the applicant can be said to be in the ownership of the petitioner herein. The answer is clearly in negative. The second test would be whether an affidavit on behalf of the father-in-law that he would transfer the land if the petitioner succeeds, can enlarge the meaning of the expression 'Family Unit'. In our opinion, once Family Unit has been defined and from the definition of the 'Family Unit', the intention becomes clear that the land must be owned by the applicant or the member of the family unit. It is in that context that persons, other than unmarried son(s) / daughter(s), have not been included in the definition of Family Unit. Normally a married son and married daughter would be having an independent livelihood.
In our opinion, the classification made in the advertisement between the married and unmarried cannot be said to be arbitrary or unreasonable considering the object of the scheme.
For the aforesaid reasons, we find no merit in the second contention also.
The petition stands dismissed accordingly.