With the consent of both parties, the main writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal.
2 This matter pertains to distributorship / dealership of Liquefied Petroleum Gas ('LPG' for brevity) under a scheme, which goes by the name 'Rajiv Gandhi Gramin LPG Vitarak Scheme' ('RGGLV Scheme' for brevity).
3 The instant writ petition pertains to allotment of distributorship / dealership in Ramenjeri village in Thiruvallur District.
4 Both the petitioner as well as the second respondent herein had applied for distributorship / dealership pursuant to an advertisement dated 31.10.2010 inviting applications for distributorship / dealership from suitable candidates.
5 This Court is informed that the second respondent was awarded dealership on 14.3.2011 and that the second respondent is now carrying on LPG Dealership of the first respondent Oil company, namely, Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited ('HPCL' for brevity) for about seven years now.
6 The writ petitioner challenges the appointment of second respondent as a distributor / dealer, primarily, on the ground that the second respondent did not satisfy Clause 4(b) as contained in the Brochure.
7 Clause 4(b) mandates that one should be a resident of the town / village of the advertised RGGLV location.
8 It is the case of the writ petitioner that the second respondent was not a resident of Ramenjeri village. This point has been articulated by the writ petitioner in paragraph 8 of the writ affidavit, wherein the clause has been wrongly referred to as Clause 4(f). At the time of hearing, it has been submitted that 4(f) should be read as 4(b).
9 In response to this sole point, on which the allotment of distributorship / dealership to second respondent is assailed, the first respondent in his counter affidavit dated 15.4.2012 would say that the second respondent submitted a residency certificate from the Village Administrative Officer dated 23.11.2010 and also a residency certificate dated 22.4.2011 from the Tahdilar, Thiruvallur, confirming that the second respondent is a resident of Ramenjeri village, residing at No.63, Nadu Street, Ramenjeri, Thiruvallur Taluk. The above have been articulated by the first respondent HPCL in sub paragraphs (g) and (h) of paragraph 4, which read as follows :
4.. x x x x x x x x x x x x x
(g)As regards para 7, I deny the allegation that petitioner fulfilled the eligibility criteria since he furnished the documents required. It is submitted that 2nd respondent submitted a Residency Certificate from Village Administrative Officer on 23.11.2010. The 2nd Respondent also produced a Residency Certificate dated 22/4/2011 from Tahsildar, Thiruvallur confirming that 2nd respondent is a resident of Ramanjeri village, residing at No.63, Nadu Street, Ramanjeri, Thiruvallur Taluk.
(h)With regard to the allegation in para 8, I deny that 2nd respondent is not a resident of Ramanjeri Village for which area RGGLV distributorship is given. On the other hand I state that as per Selection guidelines applicable for RGGLVY LPG Distributorship, the candidate should be resident of advertised location Ramancheri and the 2nd respondent submitted the Residency Certificate from the concerned Tahsildar as per guidelines which is the basic requirement to quality and became eligible. Thus the 2nd respondent has met his eligibility criteria. 10 It is also contended in the counter affidavit as well as in the hearing today by Mr.O.R.Santhanakrishnan, learned counsel for the first respondent that the writ petitioner did not satisfy the condition of owning the land within the parameters set out in the notification inviting applications. The land as required should be owned by the family unit as set out in Clause 4(e). Learned counsel for the first respondent would contend that the writ petitioner has not satisfied this condition.
11 The land requirement as set out in clause 4(g) inter-alia reads 'own a suitable land (plot) of minimum 20 metre x 24 metre in dimension at the advertised RGGLV location for construction or LPG cylinder Storage Godown'.
12 However, learned counsel for the writ petitioner submits that the writ petitioner does satisfy this criteria by relying on and referring to a sale deed dated 6.2.2006 in this regard.
13 Primarily, the writ petitioner has to demonstrate that allotment of distributorship / dealership to second respondent is illegal, that has to be quashed and only thereafter the question of whether the writ petitioner satisfies eligibility criteria would arise. To be noted, distributorship / dealership was awarded to the second respondent on 14.3.2011 and writ was brought up for admission on 23.1.2012. In this context, Mr.O.R.Santhanakrishnan, learned counsel for first respondent would also draw my attention to an order and say that the order allotting dealership to second respondent has not been challenged.
14 Though technically this submission of learned counsel Mr.O.R.Santhanakrishnan is correct, in the light of the fact that this is a writ petition, I thought it fit to examine the allotment made in favour of the second respondent, which is being assailed by the writ petitioner on the sole ground that she is not a resident of Ramenjeri village.
15 Considering the fact that the second respondent has produced Residency certificates from the jurisdictional Village Administrative Officer and the jurisdictional Tahsildar, the averment that the second respondent is not a resident of Ramenjeri village is obviously unfounded.
16 It was pointed out that the certificates are post advertisement. That is based on the premise that a person would be resident of a particular area only from that dates of the residency certificates which in my opinion is flawed and unacceptable.
17 I have also taken note of the submission made by Mr.O.R.Santhanakrishnan that the second respondent, who has been given distributorship / dealership on 14.3.2011, is actually running LPG distributorship / dealership in Ramenjeri for more than seven years now.
18 Owing to all that have been stated supra, I am of the view that the writ petitioner has not established that allotment of LPG distributorship / dealership to the second respondent is incorrect or illegal calling for interference. As this stage has not been crossed, further examination of entitlement of the writ petitioner does not arise.
19 Owing to all that have been stated supra, the writ petition fails and is dismissed. Considering the nature of the matter, the parties are left to bear their respective costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
28.06.2017 Index : Yes/No vvk To The Senior Regional Manager, LPG RO Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited, Petro Bhavan, 3rd Floor, New No.82, TTK Road, Near Alwarpet Bridge, Chennai-600 018.
M.Sundar, J.
vvk W.P.No.1028 of 2012 28.06.2017 http://www.judis.nic.in