# Gajendra Pratap Soni v. U.O.I. & Ors - **Citation:** (2024) 11 ILRA 456 - **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad - **Decided:** 2024-11-07 - **Case number:** Writ -C No. 22925 of 2024 - **Bench:** Shekhar B. Saraf, Vipin Chandra Dixit - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/gajendra-pratap-soni-v-u-o-i-ors-51073 - **Pages:** 4 ## Headnote for a period of three years - impugned order rejected Petitioner's selection- Petitioner had already received the benefit of operating the coco outlet-cannot have any right to seek the same once again. W.P. dismissed. (E-9) List of Cases cited: AIR CMDE Navish Bahri (Retd.) Vs U.O.I. & ors. [W.P. (C) 10686/2020 & CM. Nos.33540/2020 and 13155/2021 decided on November 23, 2021] ## Text 456 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES Additional District and Sessions Judge, Hardoi and others, 2000 (1) ARC 653." 12. Looking to the intendment of the legislature under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, I find that once the tenancy has stood terminated by the issuance of notice as the landlord inclined himself to terminate it, the question of default can ofcourse, rightly should not have been gone into. The proposition of law as discussed in the aforesaid judgment appears to be absolutely incorrect and therefore, I do not find any good ground to differ with the same. 13. Learned Standing Counsel representing the respondents could not place any judgment to the contrary, nor could say that the judgment cited before the Court is no more a good law for being reversed or any contrary view by a larger Bench. 14. In view of the above, this petition succeeds and is allowed. The order passed by the Judge, Small Causes dated 16.12.2022 and the decree issued in respect thereof dated 16.12.2022 are hereby set aside. 15. The matter is remitted to the trial court to decide afresh on the basis of the pleadings already raised and the evidence led by the parties. 16. Since the suit is of the year 2019, it not only stands restored but is also directed to be adjudicated within the next four months of production of certified copy of this order. ---------- (2024) 11 ILRA 456 ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 07.11.2024 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SHEKHAR B. SARAF, J. THE HON'BLE VIPIN CHANDRA DIXIT, J. Writ -C No. 22925 of 2024 Gajendra Pratap Soni ...Petitioner Versus U.O.I. & Ors. ...Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri Kartikeya Saran Counsel for the Respondents: A.S.G.I., Ms. Archana Singh, C.S.C., Sri Komal Mehrotra, Sri Sudarshan Singh The petitioner has already run the coco outlet for a period of three years - impugned order rejected Petitioner's selection- Petitioner had already received the benefit of operating the coco outlet-cannot have any right to seek the same once again. W.P. dismissed. (E-9) List of Cases cited: AIR CMDE Navish Bahri (Retd.) Vs U.O.I. & ors. [W.P. (C) 10686/2020 & CM. Nos.33540/2020 and 13155/2021 decided on November 23, 2021] (Delivered by Hon'ble Shekhar B. Saraf, J. & Hon'ble Vipin Chandra Dixit, J.) 1. Heard Sri Kartikeya Saran, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, Sri Sudarshan Singh, Smt. Archana Singh and Sri Girish Chandra Tiwari, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respective respondents. 2. This is a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India wherein the writ petitioners is aggrieved by 11 All. Gajendra Pratap Soni Vs. U.O.I. & Ors. 457 the impugned order/email dated June 24, 2024 passed by the respondent No.4/Directorate General Resettlement (DGR), West Block-IV, Rama Krishna Puram, New Delhi. 3. Sri Sudarshan Singh, counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent has relied upon a judgment of Delhi High Court rendered in AIR CMDE Navish Bahri (Retd.) v. Union of India and others [W.P. (C) 10686/2020 & CM. Nos.33540/2020 and 13155/2021 decided on November 23, 2021] wherein a similar issue, as in the present writ petition, has specifically been dealt with. The relevant paragraphs are delineated below: 44. In this regard, I may state that the Brochure of the Oil Companies is meant for selection of service provider through open selection and also through nomination from DGR / RSB / ZSB (Clause 1.1 and 1.2) but the nomination from DGR / RSB / ZSB is as per SOP issued by DGR. The Brochure of oil companies cannot determine the eligibility for nomination by DGR / RSB / ZSB. In these petitions, this Court is concerned with the nomination from DGR / RSB / ZSB. Paragraph 3.1 is a non-eligibility Clause. Clause 3.1 shall not be applicable to sponsorship by DGR / RSB, inasmuch as the eligibility for sponsorship by the DGR / RSB and ZSB is as per SOP. 45. It necessarily follows that a person having already availed COCO RO for the first time, is not eligible for the renomination / re-sponsorship for the second time in terms of Clause 4(d). The plea of Mr. Pandey was also by relying upon Clause 10(b) of the SOP which states that extension of the contract would be solely at the discretion of the Oil Company. The said Clause has to be read in the context of the provision, which relates to the award of contract of temporary COCO RO for one year, extendable for another year i.e., two years maximum put together. It is in the context of the said extension that the Clause stipulates that the extension of the contract would be solely at the discretion of the Oil Companies. 46. Even on facts, I find, it was the understanding of the petitioner in W.P.(C) 10686/2020 that the benefit of COCO RO availed once would not entitle the service provider re-nomination / responsorship for the second time. This, I say so, because the petitioner had in his undertaking given, while submitting his application has clearly stated the following:- "UNDERTAKING FORMAT FOR THE OFFICER WHO ARE APPLYING FOR EMPLOYMENT ASSISTANCE 1. I, IC/SS No.:16605 H Rank Air Cmde Name Navish Bahri hereby give an undertaking that I have been registered for General Employment COCO Scheme in DGR (DGR Registration No.DGR(O)/14121). However, till date I have not got any resettlement benefit from the applied/registered DGR Schemes. 2. In case of my selection in this offer for the post of COCO 458 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES Retail Outlet at Ms/HSD HP Centre, Moti Nagar, in 1642020 HI CL, COCO Retail Outlet at (Organisation Name), I shall cease to be a "Bonafide Claimer" for any other DESW/DGR Schemes and do undertake that it shall be my in- escapable duty inform DGR of my selection & appointment. 3. If in case of any violation of my undertaking, action be taken against me by way of deregistering / debarring me from all DESW/DGR schemes and jobs by the Principal Employer (s)." (emphasis supplied) 47. The above depicts that the petitioner has represented that he has not got any re-settlement benefit from the applied / registered DGR scheme. It is an accepted position that the petitioner had registered himself for providing services at COCO RO and had got the benefit for the period 2018-21. 48. The plea of Mr. Pandey that the undertaking consisting of the words "I have not got any resettlement benefit from the applied / registered DGR Scheme" are pretyped words which could not be edited and there was no alternative for the applicant to give such an undertaking, is clearly an afterthought and in fact it justifies the case of the respondent No.2 / DGR that such a benefit cannot be given for the second time and it is for that reason that those words have been incorporated in the undertaking in a pre-typed form. That means the applicant cannot say, he has availed the benefit earlier. ***** 50. It was the plea of Mr. Pandey that one Group Captain Jayveera Pandian (Retd.) even after availing the benefit of COCO RO has been re-nominated for the second time, hence the cancellation of re-nomination / re-sponsorship of the petitioners as service providers of COCO RO is bad and seek parity is concerned, I am afraid such a plea of Mr. Pandey cannot be accepted in view of my conclusion above with regard to the provisions of the SOP issued by the respondent Nos.1 and 2 governing the nomination / sponsorship of the Officers / JCOs for the management of COCO RO, which clearly reveal that there cannot be any re-nomination for the second time, being contrary to the very nature of the scheme to provide resettlement and welfare of ESMs. It is settled law, that the concept of equality as envisaged under Article 14 of the Constitution is a positive concept which cannot be enforced in a negative manner, as held by the Supreme Court in State of Bihar and Ors. vs. Kameshwar Prasad Singh and Ors., MANU/SC/0358/2000, and by this Court in Jitendra Singh Naruka vs. University of Delhi & Ors., W.P. (C) 6025/2014. 4. Upon a perusal of the above judgement, it is clear that the recommendation of the Directorate General Resettlement (hereinafter referred to as "the DGR") is to assist the persons, who have not got the benefit on an earlier occasion. In the present case, the petitioner has already run the coco outlet for a period of three years (2021 to 2024). In light of the 11 All. Manoj Kumar Yadav Vs. State of U.P. & Anr. 459 same, the letter issued by the DGR dated June 24, 2024 is relevant as it specifically states that the petitioner should not be considered in the selection process again and his nomination that might have been sponsored through DGR should be treated as invalid and cancelled. This is very much in keeping with the guidelines of the Standard Operating Procedure (hereinafter referred to as "the SOP") for sponsorship of ex-servicemen, officers and JCOs for management of company owned company operated (COCO) retail outlets. Clause 5(c) of the SOP clearly states that the JCOs should not have availed any other benefit from DGR/RSB/ZSB earlier. In the present case, DGR has nominated three persons, and therefore, the petitioner, who had already received the benefit of operating the coco outlet, cannot have any right to seek the same once again. 5. Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has relied upon paragraph 3.1.2 of the Guidelines for Selection of Service Provider for Manpower & Services at Company Owned Company Operated (COCO) Retail Outlets that allows the persons, who are running the coco outlet to once again apply. However, these guidelines are general in nature and would be superseded by the SOP that operates on exservicemen. The recommendation of the DGR cannot be given for a second time to the same person, if other candidates are available. 6. The entire rational of the SOP is to provide the benefit to ex-servicemen to meet the financial exigency. Since the petitioner has already availed the benefit on an earlier occasion, he is not entitled to apply once again for the same, specially keeping in mind that there are three other ex-servicemen, who are in fray. In light of the same, the writ petition is dismissed. 7. There shall be no order as to costs. ---------- (2024) 11 ILRA 459 ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 28.11.2024 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SHEKHAR B. SARAF, J. THE HON'BLE VIPIN CHANDRA DIXIT, J. Writ -C No. 28196 of 2023 Manoj Kumar Yadav ...Petitioner Versus State of U.P. & Anr. ...Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Alok Kumar Yadav, Vashistha Dubey Counsel for the Respondents: C.S.C. Advocate's fees-Petitioner is a practicing advocate-representation of petitioner claiming his professional fees was rejected for the cases wherein the petitioner represented Gaon Sabha of District Jaunpur.- petitioner was authorized to appear in all the cases where the Gaon Sabhas of district Jaunpur was a party - he appeared before the Court and assisted the Hon'ble Court in all the matters- he is entitled to receive professional fees-the action of respondent no.2 in denying the professional fees to the petitioner is arbitrary and malafide-impugned order set aside. W.P. allowed. (E-9) (Delivered by Hon'ble Shekhar B. Saraf, J. & Hon'ble Vipin Chandra Dixit, J.) 1. Heard Sri Alok Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Gireesh Chandra Tiwari, learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents and perused the record.