# Dalit Shoshit Samaj Sangharsh Samiti & Anr v. Union of India & Ors

- **Citation:** (2013) 3 ILRA 1544
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2013-10-25
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 58778 of 2013
- **Bench:** Arun Tandon, Anajani Kumar Mishra
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/dalit-shoshit-samaj-sangharsh-samiti-anr-v-union-of-india-ors-42742
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

Constitution of India, Art.-226- Petitioner
challenging of advertisement for L.P.G. gas
dealership-on
ground-requirement
of
25x30
meter
land's
ownership-heldarbitrary-another requirement dealership
should not be full time working servicealso-held-misconceived
if
dealer
not
possess required land-agency shall be in
hands of moneyed person, owner of landand if dealer working full time service can
not devote proper time in distributionunless marketing guide lines challengedadvertisement can not be questioned.

Held: Para-16,17,18

## Text

1544 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
petitioner is not able to show any provisions
under the service rules for reinstatement after
acquittal in criminal proceeding, therefore, in
view of the laws laid down by the Apex
Court and this Court, referred herein-above,
the petitioner is not entitled to be reinstated
in service.

20. In view of the foregoing
discussions
and
the
facts
and
circumstances of the case, I do not see
any reason to interfere in the matter. The
writ petition fails and is dismissed.
--------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 25.10.2013

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE ARUN TANDON, J.
THE HON'BLE ANAJANI KUMAR MISHRA, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 58778 of 2013

Dalit Shoshit Samaj Sangharsh Samiti &
Anr.
 ...Petitioners
Versus
Union of India & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri I.N. Singh, Sri Ajay Yadav, Sri Ravi
Kant

Counsel for the Respondents:
A.S.G.I., Sri Tarun Verma, Sri Vikas
Budhwar, Sri Ashish Agarwal.

Constitution of India, Art.-226- Petitioner
challenging of advertisement for L.P.G. gas
dealership-on
ground-requirement
of
25x30
meter
land's
ownership-heldarbitrary-another requirement dealership
should not be full time working servicealso-held-misconceived
if
dealer
not
possess required land-agency shall be in
hands of moneyed person, owner of landand if dealer working full time service can
not devote proper time in distributionunless marketing guide lines challengedadvertisement can not be questioned.

Held: Para-16,17,18
16. A person possessed of land outside
the limits defined, qua a particular
location, is not qualified for being
considered for grant of dealership in a
particular municipal/town/village, as he
will not be able to construct the godown
in terms of the stipulations of the policy.
The requirement of land separately for
each location is, therefore, fair and just.

17. So far as the induction of the spouse as
deemed co-owner to the extent of 50% is
concerned, we find that such condition is in
the larger public interest. The wives in poor
country like India are mostly unemployed,
and are dependent upon her husband for
their livelihood. Their interest has to be
protected and for this purpose the Oil
Companies
have
come
up
with
the
stipulation that the spouse must be deemed
to be a co-owner of 50% of the dealership.
Such stipulation in our opinion need not be
interfered by this Court, being in the larger
interest of the society.

18. The stipulation with regard to the
resignation from the employment by the
applicant, on being selected as dealer, is
also fair and just. Running of the dealership
of L.P.G. is a whole time employment and a
person cannot be expected to perform
duties both as a dealer as well as an
employee of a concern simultaneously. In
these circumstances, the Oil Companies are
justified in insisting that on being selected
as dealer the person concerned must resign
from the employment. The condition cannot
be said to be arbitrary.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Arun Tandon, J.)

1. Heard Sri Ravi Kant, Senior
Advocate assisted by Sri I.N. Singh,
Advocate on behalf of the petitioner, Sri
Ashish Agrawal, Advocate on behalf of
respondent no. 1, Sri Tarun Verma,
3 All] Dalit Shoshit Samaj Sangharsh Samiti & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Ors.
1545
Advocate on behalf of respondent no. 2,
Sri Vikas Budhwar, Advocate on behalf
of respondent no. 4.

2. Petitioner no. 1 claims to be the
society registered in the name and style of
Dalit Shoshit Samaj Sangharsh Samiti
(D.S. Four) Allahabad, while petitioner
no. 2 is a member of the said society. The
members of the petitioner society belong
to the Scheduled Caste. Petitioner no. 1
society looks after their interest.

3. This petition has been filed
challenging the advertisement, which has
been published in terms of the guidelines
framed by the Oil Marketing Companies in
the matter of selection of regular L.P.G.
Distributorship by the nationalized three oil
companies, namely Indian Oil Corporation,
Bharat Petroleum Corporation and Hindustan
Petroleum Corporation.

4. The advertisement is challenged
before this Court on following grounds:

(a)
The
requirement
of
land
measuring 25 Meter x 30 Meter within 15
K.M. from the municipal/town/village
limit of the location, for the purposes of
construction of the godown for L.P.G.,
must be possessed by the applicant on the
date of making of the application is
arbitrary, inasmuch as members of the
petitioner society are poor person. The
purpose of providing reservation in their
favour will be frustrated by imposing such
condition. It is submitted that the
corporation should insist on the land
being provided after a particular candidate
is selected and not at the time of making
of the application.

(b) The requirement of separate land
being possessed by the applicant in
respect of each location for which he
makes application, i.e. if an applicant
makes applications for four locations, he
has to possess land at four places in terms
of the policy guidelines, is arbitrary.

(c) The condition under clause 5 of the
advertisement, wherein the spouse has been
declared to be a co-owner of the dealership to
the extent of 50% on being awarded the
dealership, is arbitrary, inasmuch as in a
given case the selected applicant may not
like his spouse to be made a partner. The
respondent cannot curtail the rights of the
selected person to carry on his trade and
business in the dealership as he so desires.

(d) The reservation as provided under
the advertisement is 22.5% for Scheduled
Caste and Scheduled Tribes is incorrect, as
under the Government Order it should be
22.5% for the Scheduled Caste exclusively.

(e) The roster as applied in the
advertisement
in
fact
works
out
reservation to the extent of 19% in favour
of the Scheduled Caste, when as per the
policy it should be 22.5%.

(f) The stipulation that on being selected
and being appointed as a dealer of the Oil
Companies the dealer has to resign from the
employment, if he/she is so employed, is a
bad condition, inasmuch as the dealer can
continue in employment and carry on his
business of dealership simultaneously.

5. Counsel for the Corporation in reply
submits
that
all
the
conditions
as
incorporated in the advertisement are strictly
in accordance with the policy guidelines,
which are not under challenge in this
petition. According to the respondents the
petitioner society has no locus to challenge
the policy laid down by the Oil Marketing
Company in the matter of allotment of
dealership
by
the
Government
Oil
Companies. He further submits that the
1546 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
guidelines as framed are in the larger interest
of the public and in order to ensure that only
bona fide applicants submit their application
for being considered for dealership. The
respondents explain that the reason for
asking for ownership of land is in order to
ensure that after being selected as a dealer the
selected person surreptitiously do not induct
owner of land for running of the dealership,
as a result of which the dealership passes into
the hands of moneyed people.

6. It is then submitted that there is no
condition for the spouse to resign from the
employment on her/his partner being selected
as dealer. It is only the applicant who has to
resign on being selected as a dealer.

7. The stipulation, for inducting the
spouse as a co-owner, is to provide security
to wives who are mostly housewife and are
dependent for livelihood upon their husband.

8. It is lastly submitted that reservation
of 22.5% has been provided strictly in
accordance with the Government Order
applicable. If there is any deficiency in the
roster provided, the Oil Companies shall reconsider the same and if required necessary
corrigendum shall be issued.

9. Counsel for the respondent has
referred to the judgment of the Apex
Court in the case of Mahindra Kumar
Gupta vs. Union of India; 1995 SCC (1)
85, wherein it ha been laid down that the
policy
decision
providing
for
the
guidelines in the matter of award of
dealership, distributorship of petroleum
product
by
government
undertaking
cannot be subjected to challenge by an
association, as it has no fundamental right
under the Constitution of India.

10. Counsel for the petitioner in
rejoinder referred to the judgment of the
Apex Court reported in 2010 SCC (3)
274. It is contended that arbitrariness of a
policy can always be challenged under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

11. Having heard learned counsel for
the parties and having examined the records,
we find no substance in the contentions
raised on behalf of the petitioners.

12. Before dealing with the grounds
raised specifically, we may record that the
petitioners, for the reasons best known to
them, have not challenged the marketing
guidelines under which the advertisement
has been issued. They have only come
forward to challenge the advertisement. The
advertisement has been published in terms of
the policy guidelines of the Oil Companies.
The writ petition is liable to be dismissed on
this ground alone. However, it would be
appropriate that we may deal with specific
objections raised point-wise.

13. The issues raised by the petitioners
are to be examined in the legal background
that the petitioners have no fundamental right
to trade in L.P.G. They have only a right to
be considered in the matter of grant of
dealership in accordance with guidelines
fixed by the Oil Marketing Companies and
not de hors the same.

14. L.P.G. Is per se dangerous being
explosive in nature. The dealer has to
3 All] Dalit Shoshit Samaj Sangharsh Samiti & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Ors.
1547
obtain a licence from the explosive
department in respect of the godown
where the L.P.G. Cylinders are to be kept.
Therefore, the oil companies are entitled
to lay down norms for ensuring that trade
by dealers in L.P.G. is safe and secure.
Sufficiency of reasons or that there could
be a better method for achieving the same
purpose, as suggested by the petitioner, is
no concern of writ Court under Article
226 of the Constitution of India in policy
matters.

15. The first contention raised on
behalf of the petitioner, qua applicant being
possessed of the land measuring 25 meter x
30 meter at the time of the making of the
application, in our opinion ignores the fact
that such stipulation has only been made to
ensure that only bona fide persons possessed
of adequate land for construction of godown,
where the L.P.G. Cylinders can be safely
stored, submit their application. The counsel
for the Oil Companies appears to be justified
in submitting that this condition has been
incorporated to avoid passing of the
dealership into the hands of moneyed people
after the selection of the person concerned.
The requirement of the land, as mentioned,
cannot be said to be without reason or
arbitrary. It is for the authorities, providing
for the policy guidelines, to decide as to what
conditions must be satisfied by an applicant
before his application can be entertained in
the matter of selection for grant of dealership.
Such policy decision can be questioned in a
Court of law, only if it is demonstrated to be
patently arbitrary. We find that the condition
imposed is reasonable and for a purpose.
Under the policy guidelines there is provision
that for each location the applicant must have
land separately, for construction of a godown,
and that too within 15 km. from the limit of
municipal/town/village in respect whereof the
dealership is applied for. It is in this
background
that
while
submitting
an
application the candidate has to furnish details
of his being owner of land measuring 25
Meter x 30 Meter for the particular location.

16. A person possessed of land
outside the limits defined, qua a particular
location, is not qualified for being
considered for grant of dealership in a
particular municipal/town/village, as he
will not be able to construct the godown
in terms of the stipulations of the policy.
The requirement of land separately for
each location is, therefore, fair and just.

17. So far as the induction of the
spouse as deemed co-owner to the extent of
50% is concerned, we find that such
condition is in the larger public interest. The
wives in poor country like India are mostly
unemployed, and are dependent upon her
husband for their livelihood. Their interest
has to be protected and for this purpose the
Oil Companies have come up with the
stipulation that the spouse must be deemed to
be a co-owner of 50% of the dealership.
Such stipulation in our opinion need not be
interfered by this Court, being in the larger
interest of the society.

18. The stipulation with regard to
the resignation from the employment by
the applicant, on being selected as dealer,
is also fair and just. Running of the
dealership of L.P.G. is a whole time
employment and a person cannot be
expected to perform duties both as a
dealer as well as an employee of a
concern
simultaneously.
In
these
circumstances, the Oil Companies are
justified in insisting that on being selected
1548 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
as dealer the person concerned must
resign
from
the
employment.
The
condition cannot be said to be arbitrary.

19. So far as the issue of extent of
reservation being 22.5% in favour of
Scheduled
Caste
category
only
is
concerned, it may be recorded that the
counsel for the petitioner has hopelessly
failed to refer to any Government Order,
which provided for 22.5% reservation for
the
Scheduled
Caste
candidate
exclusively. The submission is therefore
unfounded.

20. In respect of reservation of
22.5% having not been satisfied under the
roster provided with the advertisement,
we make it clear that if the petitioners
have any such grievance, they may
represent before the Coordinator of the
Oil Companies within two weeks from
today along with certified copy of this
order. The Coordinator shall consider and
decide the same by means of a reasoned
speaking order, preferably within six
weeks thereafter. All consequential action
shall be taken accordingly in that regard.

21. Writ petition is disposed of
subject to the observations made above.
--------