# Smt. Sunita Singh v. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. and others

- **Citation:** (2011) 2 ILRA 588
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2011-05-11
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 21194 of 2011
- **Bench:** Amitava Lala, Ashok Srivastava
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/smt-sunita-singh-v-hindustan-petroleum-corporation-ltd-and-others-41930
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

Constitution of India Article 226-Natural
Justice-cancellation of candidature for
selection of distributionship of L.P.G.
Rajiv Gandhi Gramin Vitarak Schemepetitioner submitted her deed of title
with joint affidavit of other co-sharer
including
her
husband-if
dealership
granted having no objection-petitioner
awarded 81% marks before participation
of draw of lots- candidature canceled as
the title deed on verification not found
exclusive with name of her husbandwithout affording opportunity to the
petitioner-held not proper if within days
explanation filed the authorities to take
appropriate decision in mean time no
letters of appointment be issued

Held: Para 10

Against this background, factually when
we find that the cancellation order was
passed on 10th March, 2011 and the
same was sent to the petitioner through
registered post on 15th March, 2011, and
in between these two dates news item
was published on 11th March, 2011 and
subsequent selection was held on 14th
March, 2011 by selecting the respondent
no. 3 herein, such exercise appears to be
contrary to the interest of a selected
candidate. No specified time has been
given to the petitioner to explain the
position as mentioned in the order of
cancellation dated 10th March, 2011
pursuant to such Paragraph 12.10, the
petitioner is entitled to file her grievance
before the concerned redressal system
within seven days from the date of
obtaining certified copy of this order to
get an opportunity of hearing and if she
does so, the authority concerned will
consider the cause and finalise the issue
within a period of seven days thereafter.
Only after consideration of the grievance
of
the
petitioner,
the
authority
concerned will be entitled to call upon
the respondent no. 3 to verify her record
too to evaluate her right over the land.
However, no letter of intent will be
issued, if not already issued, to any
candidate. In case letter of intent has
already
been
issued,
no
letter
of
appointment will be issued for such
period.
2 All] Smt. Sunita Singh V. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. and others
589

## Text

588 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2011
under the U.P. Public Money Recovery of
Dues Act, 1972 are without jurisdiction.

8. In view of the above, the Recovery
Certificate dated 4.1.2011 sent by the
respondent-Union Bank of India to the
Collector, District Azamgarh (Annexure-3
to the Writ Petition) is liable to be quashed.

9. The Writ Petition is accordingly
allowed. The Recovery Certificate dated
4.1.2011 sent by the respondent-Union
Bank of India to the Collector, District
Azamgarh
(Annexure-3
to
the
Writ
Petition) is quashed.

10. This order will, however, not
come in the way of the respondent-Union
Bank of India to proceed against the
petitioner to make recovery in respect of the
loan in question in accordance with law.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 11.05.2011

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE AMITAVA LALA,J.
THE HON'BLE ASHOK SRIVASTAVA,J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 21194 of 2011

Smt. Sunita Singh

 ...Petitioner
Versus
Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd.
and others

 ... Respondents

Counsel For the Petitioner:
Mr. Wasim Alam
Mr. Anil Kumar Tiwari.

Counsel For the Respondents:
Mr. Vikas Budhwar.

Constitution of India Article 226-Natural
Justice-cancellation of candidature for
selection of distributionship of L.P.G.
Rajiv Gandhi Gramin Vitarak Schemepetitioner submitted her deed of title
with joint affidavit of other co-sharer
including
her
husband-if
dealership
granted having no objection-petitioner
awarded 81% marks before participation
of draw of lots- candidature canceled as
the title deed on verification not found
exclusive with name of her husbandwithout affording opportunity to the
petitioner-held not proper if within days
explanation filed the authorities to take
appropriate decision in mean time no
letters of appointment be issued

Held: Para 10

Against this background, factually when
we find that the cancellation order was
passed on 10th March, 2011 and the
same was sent to the petitioner through
registered post on 15th March, 2011, and
in between these two dates news item
was published on 11th March, 2011 and
subsequent selection was held on 14th
March, 2011 by selecting the respondent
no. 3 herein, such exercise appears to be
contrary to the interest of a selected
candidate. No specified time has been
given to the petitioner to explain the
position as mentioned in the order of
cancellation dated 10th March, 2011
pursuant to such Paragraph 12.10, the
petitioner is entitled to file her grievance
before the concerned redressal system
within seven days from the date of
obtaining certified copy of this order to
get an opportunity of hearing and if she
does so, the authority concerned will
consider the cause and finalise the issue
within a period of seven days thereafter.
Only after consideration of the grievance
of
the
petitioner,
the
authority
concerned will be entitled to call upon
the respondent no. 3 to verify her record
too to evaluate her right over the land.
However, no letter of intent will be
issued, if not already issued, to any
candidate. In case letter of intent has
already
been
issued,
no
letter
of
appointment will be issued for such
period.
2 All] Smt. Sunita Singh V. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. and others
589
(Delivered by Hon'ble Amitava Lala,J.)

1. Amitava Lala, J.-- In this writ
petition, the petitioner has challenged the
order dated 10th March, 2011, whereby her
application for grant of LPG distributorship
under the Rajiv Gandhi Gramin LPG Vitrak
Scheme (hereinafter in short called as
"RGGLV") in respect of the place, known
as Village Dharampur Vishunpur, District
Mau, Uttar Pradesh, has been cancelled, and
has further prayed for quashing the selection
process held on 14th March, 2011 pursuant
to the news item dated 11th March, 2011 in
respect of such place, along with other
incidental prayers.

2. Petitioner's contention is that she
was selected as first empanelled candidate
for grant of LPG distributorship under the
RGGLV in respect of the concerned place.
However, after being successful in the
respective process of selection, her selection
was cancelled as per Paragraph 12.10 of the
Brochure on Selection of Rajiv Gandhi
Gramin LPG Vitrak (RGGLV) (hereinafter
in short called as ''Brochure'). Therefore, let
us go through the facts of the case to
understand the position.

3. Briefly stated facts of the case,
according to the petitioner, are that pursuant
to the advertisement dated 17th October,
2009 for grant of LPG distributorship under
the RGGLV the petitioner applied for the
same in respect of the concerned place.
Such application of the petitioner was
accompanied with the required documents
including extract of Khasra/ Khatauni in
respect of the clear title over the land, which
is to be used for construction of LPG
cylinder storage godown. Such land, as
proposed by the petitioner, is in the joint
ownership of the petitioner's husband and
other family members. The petitioner's
husband is one of the co-sharers along with
others of the said land and is recorded as
such in the records. The husband of the
petitioner and other co-sharers submitted
their joint affidavit in favour of the
petitioner that in case the petitioner is
selected
for
distributorship
and
she
constructs godown/showroom over such
land, they will have no objection. Share of
the petitioner's husband in the land is more
than the area required for the purpose of
construction of LPG godown/showroom.
The eligibility criteria of a candidate are the
first step in the process of selection. As per
the brochure, a Committee consisting of
two officers of the concerned Oil Company
will make scrutiny of the application and
award marks to the applicants based on the
information given in the application.
Accordingly, the petitioner was awarded
81% marks and was declared qualified
along with five other candidates for the
purpose of participating in the further
selection process. Thereafter, the petitioner
was called upon by a letter dated 28th July,
2010 to participate in the draw on 20th
August, 2010, wherein the petitioner has
been selected. However, subsequently by
the impugned order dated 10th March, 2011
her candidature has been cancelled on the
ground of non-availability of land as per the
requirement and thereafter selection has
been made in favour of the respondent no.
3.

4. The petitioner has contended that at
the time of eligibility test the title of the
petitioner's husband over the land was
found clear along with other co-sharers,
who submitted their no objection as per the
requirement under the rules as unless she
crosses the basic eligibility test, she is not
supposed to face further process of
selection. Therefore, when the petitioner
was made eligible on the basis of the
590 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2011
materials prior to the process of selection,
she
can
not
be
made
ineligible
subsequently.
The
petitioner
further
contended that a field verification was
conducted as per Paragraph 12.9 of the
brochure, but at that juncture it was not
pointed out that petitioner's husband has no
clear title over the land. Apart from that, the
order impugned was passed on 10th March,
2011 but before that neither any notice was
given nor any opportunity of hearing was
provided to the petitioner. Further selection
was ordered on 10th March, 2011 when
news item was published on 11th March,
2011 and ultimately selection of other
candidates was held on 14th March, 2011.
The order of cancellation was sent to the
petitioner on 15th March, 2011 i.e. after the
selection made on 14th March, 2011,
wherein the respondent no. 3 has been
selected.

5.

The
respondents-Hindustan
Petroleum Corporation have come with a
case that the petitioner does not come in the
purview of ''family unit' as defined in
Paragraph 4 (e) of the brochure, which
gives meaning of the ''family unit', as
follows:

" ''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)."

6. By showing such paragraph, the
respondents wanted to establish before us
that since the applicant is a married person,
she should be exclusive owner of the land
or as co-sharer with her spouse, son and
daughter. For the sake of such paragraph,
right of her husband as co-sharer with other
brothers can not be treated as ''family unit'.
Hence, no right can be derived to the
petitioner from her husband. Therefore,
when by field verification the petitioner's
husband was found to be co-sharer of the
property along with other brothers, selection
of the petitioner was cancelled.

7. According to us, the word ''family
unit' is used loosely in the brochure and
contrary to the law of succession. It can not
override the law. One can be co-sharer of a
family property and his right in the share
devolves upon his wife, son and daughter. If
wife starts a business on an immovable
property with the consent of husband and
other co-sharers, no objection can be raised
by the Corporation. It can only verify
locale/site for the sake of their business
promotion, protection from any dispute out
of such land and evaluation between others'
land. Our general observation is that
sometimes site selection is made by the
authority on the leasehold land. In the
process, appropriate evaluation is required
to be made. The authority should not show
any vindictiveness to suit any oblique
purpose.

8. We find from the brochure that
there is a paragraph, being Paragraph 12.10,
which speaks as follows:

"12.10 In case of rejection of selected
candidate due to findings in the Field
Investigation or if selected candidate is
unable to develop facilities for Rajiv Gandhi
Gramin LPG Vitrak within the specified
2 All] Dr. Munni Lal V. State of U.P. and others
591
time, then his candidature will be cancelled
and draw will be held again from the
remaining qualified eligible candidates to
select the next candidate following the
procedure as mentioned above in para 12.3
to 12.6."

9. There is another paragraph, being
Paragraph 15, in the brochure, which
provides for consideration of the grievance
or complaint by the redressal system of the
oil company itself.

10. Against this background, factually
when we find that the cancellation order
was passed on 10th March, 2011 and the
same was sent to the petitioner through
registered post on 15th March, 2011, and in
between these two dates news item was
published on 11th March, 2011 and
subsequent selection was held on 14th
March, 2011 by selecting the respondent no.
3 herein, such exercise appears to be
contrary to the interest of a selected
candidate. No specified time has been given
to the petitioner to explain the position as
mentioned in the order of cancellation dated
10th March, 2011 pursuant to such
Paragraph 12.10, the petitioner is entitled to
file her grievance before the concerned
redressal system within seven days from the
date of obtaining certified copy of this order
to get an opportunity of hearing and if she
does so, the authority concerned will
consider the cause and finalise the issue
within a period of seven days thereafter.
Only after consideration of the grievance of
the petitioner, the authority concerned will
be entitled to call upon the respondent no. 3
to verify her record too to evaluate her right
over the land. However, no letter of intent
will be issued, if not already issued, to any
candidate. In case letter of intent has already
been issued, no letter of appointment will be
issued for such period.

11. Accordingly, the writ petition is
disposed of.

No order is passed as to costs.

12. Let the copies of the necessary
documents
and/or
written
notes
of
argument, as submitted by the parties before
this Court, be kept with the record.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 19.05.2011

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SATYA POOT MEHROTRA,J.
THE HON'BLE MRS. JAYASHREE TIWARI,J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 21243 of 2011

Dr. Munni Lal

 ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. and others ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri R.K. Dubey

Counsel for the Respondent:
C.S.C.
Sri Mridul Tripathi

U.P.
Electricity
Supply-Code-2005Section-8.1
(b)
(iii)
readwith
U.P.
Government Electrical (under-taking)-
(Dues
recovery)-Act
1958-Section-3checking
note
of
the
Premises
of
petitioner does not bear signature of
consumer-notice presiding 7 days for
objection-ignoring statutory period of 15
days-without specifying date, place and
time of hearing -without final order of
assessment-No
demand
notice
be
issued-demand
notice
quashed
with
necessary direction.

Held: Para 18, 19 and 20

No Final Order of Assessment was
passed in the case of the petitioner.
Instead, a Demand Notice dated 26th