Hon'ble Het Singh Yadav,J.
The petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, inter-alia, praying for quashing the Order dated 22.9.2012.
It appears that an Advertisement dated 26.3.2011 was made in the news-paper Dainik Jagran for appointment of L.P.G. Vitrak under Rajiv Gandhi Gramin Vitrak Scheme. Copy of the Advertisement has been filed as Annexure 1 to the Writ Petition.
Pursuant to the said Advertisement, the petitioner submitted an Application dated 25.4.2011 (Annexure 2 to the Writ Petition) for being appointed Rajiv Gandhi Gramin LPG Vitrak under the aforesaid scheme. The petitioner received a Communication dated 17.11.2011 (Annexure 3 to the Writ Petition) informing the petitioner that he had qualified for draw for selection of Rajiv Gandhi Gramin LPG Vitrak, and the petitioner was required to be present for draw of lot on 7th December, 2011.
On the basis of draw of lot made on 7.12.2011, the petitioner was selected for being appointed as Rajiv Gandhi Gramin LPG Vitrak. Thereafter, it appears that field verification of the petitioner was done. On the basis of the field verification committee report,the selection of the petitioner for appointment as Rajiv Gandhi Gramin LPG Vitrak was cancelled by the Communication dated 22nd September,2012 (Annexure 10 to the Writ Petition).
The petitioner has, thereupon, filed the present Writ Petition seeking the reliefs as mentioned above.
We have heard Shri Anil Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Prakash Padia, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 1 to 4, and perused the record.
A perusal of the Application dated 25.4.2011 submitted by the petitioner shows that in the said Application, the petitioner claimed that the land bearing Khasra No. 715 was owned by the petitioner. It may be mentioned that sub-clause (vii) of Clause 4 of Appendix-C to the Manual for selection of Rajiv Gandhi Gramin LPG Vitrak (in short "The Manual") requires that the applicant should "own a suitable land /plot" for selection as Rajiv Gandhi Gramin LPG Vitrak.
It has further been clarified in the said sub-clause that "'own' means having clear ownership title of the property in the name of applicant/family member of the 'Family Unit' as defined in multiple dealership/distributorship norm. In case of ownership/co-ownership by family member, consent letter from the family member will be required".
'Family Unit' has been defined in sub-clause (v) of Clause 4 of Appendix-C to the Manual as under:
" fulfil Multiple Dealership/Distributorship norm Multiple Dealership/Distributorship norms means that the applicant or any other member of 'family unit' should not hold a dealership/distributorship/ RGGLV or Letter of Intent (LOI) for a dealership/ distributorship/RGGLV of a PSU Oil Company i.e. only one Retail Outlet/ SKO-LDO dealership/ LPG distributorship/ RGGLV of PSU Oil Company will be allowed to a 'Family Unit'.
'Family Unit' in case of married person/ applicant, shall consist of individual concerned, his/her Spouse and their unmarried son (s)/daughter (s). In case of unmarried person/ applicant, 'Family Unit' shall consist of individual concerned, his/her parents and his/her unmarried brother (s) and unmarried sister (s). In case of divorcee, 'Family Unit' shall consist of individual concerned, unmarried son (s)/unmarried daughter (s) whose custody is given to him/her. In case of widow/widower, 'Family Unit' shall consist of individual concerned, unmarried son (s)/ unmarried daughter (s)."
In the Application, the petitioner mentioned in the Column "date of registration of sale-deed/gift/ date of mutation" as 15.4.2011, while the document which was annexed with the Application purported to be a "Kirayanama" (Rent-Note) dated 15.4.2011 allegedly executed by the Grand Father of the petitioner in favour of the petitioner. The said Document dated 15.4.2011 has been filed as Annexure 5 to the Writ Petition.
A perusal of the said Document dated 15.4.2011 shows that it recites that in case the Gas Agency in favour of the petitioner would be accepted, the Grand Father of the petitioner (Lakhan Lal) would execute a Sale-Deed in favour of the petitioner in respect of the land mentioned in the said Document.
It is, thus, evident that on the date when the petitioner made the Application, namely, 25.4.2011, the land mentioned in the Application was not owned by the petitioner as per the meaning assigned to the word "own" in the Manual. Only a Rent-Deed was allegedly executed in favour of the petitioner by his Grand Father.
Without going into the validity of the Rent-Deed, it is evident that the petitioner did not "own" the land mentioned in the said Document dated 15.4.2011. Thus, pre-condition required for being appointed as Rajiv Gandhi Gramin LPG Vitrak as per the Manual was not fulfilled by the petitioner.
The impugned Communication/Order dated 22nd September, 2012, whereby the selection of the petitioner for appointment as Rajiv Gandhi Gramin LPG Vitrak has been cancelled, mentions that the Land No. 715 in Village Kuthound was owned by the said Lakhan Lal, who did not fall in the category in the 'Family Unit' of the petitioner. It is further stated in the said Communication that the land should be in the name of the applicant or his family members only. On the said grounds, the selection of the petitioner was cancelled by the said Communication dated 22nd September, 2012.
In our view, no illegality has been committed by the respondents in issuing the impugned Communication dated 22nd September, 2012 cancelling the selection of the petitioner for appointment as Rajiv Gandhi Gramin LPG Vitrak. The petitioner did not fulfil the requirement of owning the land as mentioned in the Manual.
Shri Anil Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner, however, submits that on 4.8.2012, the Grand Father of the Petitioner (Lakhan Lal) has executed a Registered Sale-Deed in favour of the petitioner in respect of the aforesaid land, and therefore, the petitioner now fulfils the pre-condition as per the Manual regarding ownership of the land, and hence, the cancellation of the selection of the petitioner by the impugned Communication/Order dated 22nd September, 2012, was not correct.
We have considered the submission made by Shri Anil Kumar Sharma and we find ourselves unable to accept the same.
The requirement regarding ownership of the land was to be fulfilled when the petitioner was making an Application for appointment as Rajiv Gandhi Gramin LPG Vitrak. Subsequent acquisition of the ownership of the land was not material for considering the Application of the petitioner for appointment as Rajiv Gandhi Gramin LPG Vitrak. Even if it be assumed that the petitioner has now got the ownership of the land, the same would not accrue for the benefit of the petitioner as the Application of the petitioner was made on 25th April, 2011 and the draw of lot was also done on 7th December, 2011.
In view of the above discussion, the Writ Petition filed by the petitioner lacks merits, and the same is liable to be dismissed.
The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed.
Order Date :- 11.10.2012 Ajeet...