# Ravi Kumar v. Union of India & Ors

- **Citation:** (2014) 3 ILRA 1542
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2014-11-13
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 60486 of 2014
- **Bench:** Dr. Dhananjaya Yeshwant Chandrachud, C.J. Pradeep Kumar Singh Baghel
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ravi-kumar-v-union-of-india-ors-43066
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

Constitution of India, Art.-226-Legality
of
Brochure
clause-10-definition
of
'family'
-challenged as discriminatorySelection of dealership for Regular and
Rural
out
let-affording
clause
of
definition of family included parent,
unmarried
brother
and
sister
while
applicant
bachelor-but
excludes
the
parties
if
married-such
discrimination/disqualification
without
any rational basis-held-distribution of
larges of state to suberve the common
good of as many as possible-economic
and social justice sought to achieved
having reasonable nexus between object
and
prescribed of eligibility criteriapetition dismissed.
Held: Para-7
In view of the decision of the Supreme
Court, noted above, such a qualification
cannot be said to be arbitrary. Hence, we
do not see any merit in the matter. The
writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
There shall be no order as to costs.
Case Law discussed:
(1995) 1 SCC 85
3 All]. Ravi Kumar Vs. Union of India & Ors.
1543

## Text

1542
 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
with the recruitment on the basis of a
qualification prescribed in the advertisement
which had been struck down by the High
Court in Sanjay Agarwal (supra). The
corrigendum seeks to ensure that the
essential qualification for recruitment is in
terms of the judgment of the Supreme Court
in Deepak Agarwal (supra).
20.
This apart, the issuance of the
corrigendum after the last date of submission
of the applications would not be contrary to
Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution as
there can possibly be no candidate who can
contend that he would have applied if this
essential qualification was mentioned in the
initial advertisement but has been prevented
from submitting the application since the last
date has expired. On the other hand, the
corrigendum, which seeks to ensure that the
advertisement is in accordance with the law
declared by the High Court and the Supreme
Court, only reduces the number of candidates
who had applied.
21.
The list which has been
published by the High Court seeks to give
effect to the corrigendum by including the
names of such candidates who satisfy the
essential requirement after excluding
those candidates who may have been
declared eligible earlier but are actually
not eligible. Mere declaration in the
earlier list that they were successful in the
preliminary examination does not create
in them a right to appear at the main
examination even if they are not eligible.
The decisions of the Supreme Court in
Tej Prakash Pathak (supra) and C.
Channabasavaih (supra), therefore, do not
help the petitioners.
22. There is, therefore, no merit in
this petition. It is, accordingly, dismissed.
--------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 13.11.2014
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE DR. DHANANJAYA YESHWANT
CHANDRACHUD, C.J.
THE HON'BLE PRADEEP KUMAR SINGH
BAGHEL, J.
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 60486 of 2014
Ravi Kumar
...Petitioner
Versus
Union of India & Ors.
...Respondents
Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Devesh Kumar Verma, Sri Suresh
Chandra Verma
Counsel for the Respondents:
A.S.G.I., Sri Vikash Budhwar
Constitution of India, Art.-226-Legality
of
Brochure
clause-10-definition
of
'family'
-challenged as discriminatorySelection of dealership for Regular and
Rural
out
let-affording
clause
of
definition of family included parent,
unmarried
brother
and
sister
while
applicant
bachelor-but
excludes
the
parties
if
married-such
discrimination/disqualification
without
any rational basis-held-distribution of
larges of state to suberve the common
good of as many as possible-economic
and social justice sought to achieved
having reasonable nexus between object
and
prescribed of eligibility criteriapetition dismissed.
Held: Para-7
In view of the decision of the Supreme
Court, noted above, such a qualification
cannot be said to be arbitrary. Hence, we
do not see any merit in the matter. The
writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
There shall be no order as to costs.
Case Law discussed:
(1995) 1 SCC 85
3 All]. Ravi Kumar Vs. Union of India & Ors.
1543
(Delivered by Hon'ble Dr. Dhananjaya
Yeshwant Chandrachud, C.J.)
1. By these proceedings the
petitioner has sought to question the
legality of the definition of the expression
"family unit" in clause-10 of the Brochure
issued by state owned oil companies for
the selection of dealers for Regular &
Rural Retail Outlets. Clause-10 of the
brochure provides for a disqualification
and, insofar it is material, provides as
follows:
"10. DISQUALIFICATION
A. Individual Applicants : The
persons
while
meeting
the
above
mentioned eligibility criteria if do not
satisfy any of the following requirements
will be considered as ineligible for
applying for the dealership:-
(i)
Fulfill Multiple dealership norms :
Multiple Dealership/ Distributorship norms
means that the applicant or any other
member of 'family unit' should not hold a
dealership/ distributorship or Letter of Intent
(LOI) for a dealership/distributorship of any
Oil Company i.e. only one Retail Outlet /
SKO-LDO dealership / LPG distributorship
or an LOI of an Oil Company will be
allowed to a 'Family Unit'.
'Family Unit' in case of married
applicant,
shall
consist
of
individual
concerned, his/ her Spouse and 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)."
2.
Under the above condition, a
multiple dealership norm has been put into
place, under which any other member of the
family unit should not hold a dealership,
distributorship or a Letter of Intent for the
allotment of a dealership or a distributorship
of an oil company. In other words only one
retail outlet dealership or distributorship of
an oil company would be allotted to a family
unit. In the case of an applicant who is
married, the family unit has been defined to
consist of the individual, his or her spouse
and unmarried sons and daughters. In the
case of an unmarried person, the family unit
is defined to include parents and unmarried
brothers and sisters.
3. According to the submission of
the petitioner, this is a discriminatory
provision and violates Article 14 of the
Constitution
since
parents
of
an
unmarried applicant have been brought
within the purview of the expression
'family unit', whereas, in the case of a
married
individual,
the
parents
are
excluded.
4.
The object and purpose of the
disqualification is to ensure that there should
not be a concentration of retail outlets,
dealerships and distributorships of an Oil
Company in one family. These dealerships or,
as the case may be, retail outlets and
distributorships, are allotted by state owned oil
companies. Consistent with the Directive
Principles of the State Policy, an effort is
made to ensure dispersal of ownership so that
a fair and equal opportunity is granted to all
members of society to apply for the allotment
of such dealerships, distributorships and retail
outlets. There can be no gainsaying the fact
that these allotments by the state owned oil
companies are highly sought after, providing
as they do an important source of income to
the allottee. Hence the norm that there should
1544
 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
be a dispersal of ownership cannot be faulted
since it is based on a criterion which is
rational. How a family should be defined for
the purposes of the allotment of a retail outlet,
distributorship or dealership, is a matter of
policy so long as the criterion which is
adopted, is based on logic and reason. The
definition of the expression "family unit", in
the present case, postulates that where an
applicant is married, his or her family should
be read to consist of the spouse and unmarried
children. Where, however, a person is not
married, the parents and siblings are included
as members of the family.
5. The petitioner has a grievance in
regard to the inclusion of parents within
the definition of a family in the case of an
unmarried applicant. The issue before the
Court is whether this assessment by the
state owned oil companies for defining a
disqualification or, as the case may be,
eligibility is arbitrary and perverse. We
are unable to hold that it is so. The nature
of the definition has a rational nexus with
the object sought to be achieved, which is
the dispersal of ownership of such
distributorships, dealerships and retail
outlets.
6.
A similar issue was considered in a
judgement of the Supreme Court in Mahinder
Kumar Gupta Vs Union of India1. In that case,
the definition of the expression "closerelatives"
was defined in a broader sense for candidates
who were not physically handicapped as
opposed to those who belonged to the
physically handicapped category. A person
from amongst specified near relatives was
made ineligible to apply for another dealership
to any nationalized oil company. In the case of
a candidate, who was not physically
handicapped, the category included the spouse,
parents, brother, sister, children, son-inlaw/daughter-in-law and parents-in-law. While
dealing with the challenge to the definition on
the ground that it was arbitrary and repelling
the contention of illegality, the Supreme Court
observed as follows:
"5. The preamble to the Constitution
envisages the securing of economic and social
justice to all its citizens; accorded equality of
status and of opportunity assuring the dignity
of the individual. Article 39(b) postulates that
the ownership and control of the material
resources of the community are to be so
distributed as to best subserve the common
good. Clause (c) prevents concentration of
wealth and means of production to the
common detriment. Since the grant of
dealership or distributorship of the petroleum
products belongs to the Government largesse,
the Government in its policy of granting the
largesse have prescribed the eligibility criteria.
One of the eligibility criteria is that one among
the near relations or partners or associates in
other words among a named group of persons
alone should have dealership and there should
not be any concentration by them in the
distribution of its petroleum products through
the dealership. The guidelines further intend to
prevent frustration of the State policy by
process of legal ingenuity or subterfuge. One
of the criteria is relationship. The relationship
criteria has been prescribed to see that the
persons who already had one dealership
should not apply so that the above objectives
of the Constitution are achieved. In Part III,
clause (b) of the relationship category, a
person from among specified near relatives
has been made ineligible to apply for another
dealership to any of the nationalised oil
companies. The petitioners/ appellants dehors
the guidelines have no independent right to
have business or avocation in the distribution or
production or ownership of one of the
petroleum
products.
Production
and
distribution of the petroleum products are the
exclusive monopoly of the State under Article
3 All]. Smt. Seema & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1545
19(6) of the Constitution. As a part of its policy
of the distribution of its largesse government
have prescribed the eligibility criteria to
the persons to obtain dealership for
distribution of petroleum products. The
distribution of the largesse of the State is
for the common good and to subserve the
common good of as many persons as
possible. The Government of India
intended to group together certain near
relations as a unit and one among that unit
alone was made eligible to apply for and
claim for grant of dealership. Further,
economic and social justice as envisaged
in the preamble of the Construction is
sought to be achieved. Therefore, there is
a reasonable nexus between the object and
the prescription of the eligibility criteria
envisages in the guidelines. All those who
satisfy the eligibility criteria alone are
entitled to apply for the consideration of
the grant of dealership. It is true that in
case of physically handicapped persons,
only three classes of persons were made
ineligible.
Physically
handicapped
persons have been treated as a class by
themselves. Under these circumstances,
any other person other than PH cannot
claim parity with PH persons. As far as
partnership is concerned, if one of the
persons either have a dealership or
relations who were found to be eligible
under the relationship criteria, and had the
dealership, than clause 10 of the said
guidelines
gets
attracted
and
such
partnership also did not become eligible
to apply for dealership/ distributorship.
The object of clause 10 appears to be that
for those partners who either one among
themselves or any of the relations of one
of the partners had a dealership, the other
partner or the specified relations also not
be eligible to apply for grant of dealership
individually or as a member of the
partnership. Therefore the guidelines are
based on public policy to give effect to
the constitutional creed of Part IV of the
Indian Constitution."
7. In view of the decision of the
Supreme Court, noted above, such a
qualification cannot be said to be
arbitrary. Hence, we do not see any merit
in the matter. The writ petition is,
accordingly, dismissed. There shall be no
order as to costs.
--------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 28.11.2014
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SURYA PRAKASH
KESARWANI, J.
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 64257 of 2014
Smt. Seema & Anr.
 ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors.
...Respondents
Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Dinesh Kumar, Sri A.R. Nadiwal
Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.
Constitution of India, Art.-226-Protection of
matrimonial life-girl belongs to Hindu
religion-while boy a Muslim religion-in
absence of conversion of religion-such
marriage alleged to be solemn in Maszid-as
per Qurran-no marriage-apart form that
both are residing at Bombay-parent of girl
also at Mumbai-no territorial jurisdictionpetition dismissed.
Held: Para-13 & 14
13. Since for a valid Muslim marriage both
the spouses have to be Muslim as per
verses of Holy Quran as noted in the
judgment in the case of Dilawar Habib
Siddiqui (supra) and since undisputedaly
the petitioner no. 1 is a Hindu girl and has