Court No. - 39
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 13658 of 2021 Petitioner :- Gangesh Kumar Upadhyay Respondent :- Union Of India And 6 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Shriprakash Shrivastava,Sr. Advocate Sri V.M. Jaidi Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I.,Ajay Kumar Gautam,C.S.C.,Vikas Budhwar
Hon'ble Mrs. Sunita Agarwal,J. Hon'ble Mrs. Sadhna Rani (Thakur),J.
Heard Sri V.M. Jaidi learned senior Advocate assisted by Sri Shriprakash Srivastava learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Ajay Kumar Gautam and Sri Vikas Budhwar on behalf of the respondents.
By means of the present petition, the petitioner seeks to challenge the order dated 19.4.2021 whereby complaint made by him regarding the selection of respondent no.6 and 7 for retail outlet dealership at village- Amedwa Bujurg Block: Urwa on Urwa-Dhuriyapar Road District-Gorakhpur has been rejected.
The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the respondent nos.6 and 7, selected candidates were not eligible on the date of submission of the application form. The complaint made by the petitioner, who was one of the applicants, was specific to the extent of dispute relating to ownership of khasra no.42 village-Amedwa Bujurg, Tehsil-Gola Dist-Gorakhpur which was offered for establishment of retail outlet dealership. Based on the decision of this Court in Writ C no.53983 of 2013 (Parvez Hussain vs Union of India thru Secy and 2 others) it is submitted that the inquiry as sought to be made by the respondent corporation after selection of respondent nos.6 and 7 was not permissible, in as much as, no ratification could be done after selection of respondent nos.6 and 7. The selection of respondent nos.6 and 7 is, thus, against the guidelines of the Corporation itself.
From the above, we may note that the order impugned has dealt with each and every point of complaint made by the petitioner in detail.
The findings on point no.1 is to the effect that the Land Evaluation Committee had sought clarification with regard to the plot-in-question/khasra no.42 for identification of the land offered by the respondent nos.6 and 7 and the report indicates that after consolidation, two plots namely khasra no.42a and 42b were given khasra no.42 which was offered by the respondent nos.6 an 7. As regards the point no.2 and 3, it was noted that there was some mistake in the spelling in the name of one of the co-owners namely Firoj Ahmad Khan whose name was wrongly mentioned as Shri Firaje Ahmad Khan in the khatauni itself. It was duly corrected by the competent authority after verification of the parentage of the said co-owner. The complaint at point no.4, was that the name of the mother of the co-owner had not been indicated as one of the co-owners in the khatauni, we may note that the complaint is not on behalf of the alleged co-owner. On the point nos.5 and 6 of the complaint, it is stated that the clarification had been given by the applicant regarding his relationship with the owners of the land-in- question whose names are recorded in the revenue record being his siblings (brothers) and that they have given no objection for establishment of retail outlet dealership at the land-in-question i.e. khasra no.42.
Considering the reasoning given by the competent authority, on perusal of the complaint made by the petitioner we are not impressed by the argument of the learned Senior Advocate that the correction of mistake in the khatauni or the application form could not have been made after selection of respondent nos.6 and 7. All the mistakes are found to be clerical in nature and the corrections having been made by the competent authority, we do not find any infirmity in the order impugned.
For the aforesaid, we do not find any good ground to invoke our extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. Order Date :- 29.7.2021 Harshita