# Subhash Kumar Saroj v. Indian Oil Corporation & Ors

- **Citation:** (2014) 1 ILRA 252
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2014-01-03
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 71103 of 2013
- **Bench:** Amreshwar Pratap Sahi, Anil Kumar Agarwal
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/subhash-kumar-saroj-v-indian-oil-corporation-ors-42767
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

Constitution of India, Art.-226-Cancellation
of
dealership-for
distribution
of
LPGpetitioner offered land-recorded with name
of his mother-corporation canceled as
mother in not defined with in definition of
'family unit' of guide lines-held-cancellation
proper-being married-petitioner can not
take advantage of her mother.

Held: Para-
In view of the said definition the
petitioner, who is of the married status,
will not be able to take advantage of his
mother's land as she does not come with
the definition of 'Family Unit' of the
petitioner as aforesaid.

## Text

252 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
there is an obligation of the public
authority to maintain the records in the
manner provided and disseminate the
information in the manner provided. The
Supreme Court in Central Board of
Secondary Education (Supra) has held
that the evaluated answer book is an
information under Section 2(f) of the Act
and consequently, such information is
required to be disseminated if asked for.
An applicant has a right to access such
information held or under the control of a
public authority.

10. The learned counsel for the
petitioner submitted that if the order of the
State Information Commission is allowed to
stand, it will open the floodgates for similar
demand and that such direction would
become
impracticable
and
counter
productive and would adversely affect the
efficiency of the administration. The learned
counsel contended that the officers and staff
of the Commission would get bogged down
with such non-productive work and that
75% of the staff would be involved in
furnishing
such
information
to
the
candidates.
The
learned
counsel
consequently, submitted that the direction to
supply photocopy of the answer sheet is
patently erroneous and should be set aside.

11. As held by the Supreme Court in
Central Board of Secondary Education
(Supra), the candidate has a right to access
the information under the Act. The answer
sheet is an information under Section 2(f) of
the Act and such information is required to
be disseminated to the candidate. The Act
provides that maximum disclosure of the
information should be made. The Supreme
Court has held that the exemption provided
under the Act is not available to the
examining body with regard to supply of
the evaluated answer book. The Supreme
Court has however, directed the examining
body to hide the signatures and name of the
examiner while supplying a photocopy or
certified copy of the answer book.

12. In the instant case, the State
Information Commission has taken care
of this aspect while directing the
Commission to supply the answer book.

13. The objections of the petitioner are
untenable and are based on presumptions.
There is nothing on record to indicate that a
large demand has been made by the
candidates for supplying copies of the
answer sheets nor there is anything on record
to suggest that 75% of the staff are presently
involved in the work. This Court is of the
opinion that supply of answer sheets cannot
be denied on such surmises and conjectures.

14. We, therefore, hold that in the
light of the decision of the Supreme Court
in Central Board of Secondary Education
(Supra), the examining body does not
hold the answer book in a fiduciary
relationship and the exemption under
Section 8 (1) (e) of the Act is not
available. We, accordingly, do not find
any error in the direction issued by the
State Information Commission.

15. For the reasons stated aforesaid,
the writ petition is dismissed.
--------

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 03.01.2014

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE AMRESHWAR PRATAP
SAHI, J.
THE HON'BLE ANIL KUMAR AGARWAL, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 71103 of 2013
1 All] Subhash Kumar Saroj Vs. Indian Oil Corporation & Ors.
253
Subhash Kumar Saroj.... Petitioner
Versus
Indian Oil Corporation & Ors....Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Rekha Singh, Sri Anand Prakash Paul
Sri B.B. Paul

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Smt. Archana Singh

Constitution of India, Art.-226-Cancellation
of
dealership-for
distribution
of
LPGpetitioner offered land-recorded with name
of his mother-corporation canceled as
mother in not defined with in definition of
'family unit' of guide lines-held-cancellation
proper-being married-petitioner can not
take advantage of her mother.

Held: Para-
In view of the said definition the
petitioner, who is of the married status,
will not be able to take advantage of his
mother's land as she does not come with
the definition of 'Family Unit' of the
petitioner as aforesaid.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Amreshwar Pratap
Sahi, J.)

1. Heard Sri B.B. Paul, learned counsel
for the petitioner at length and have also
perused the supplementary affidavit filed
today which is taken on record and Smt.
Archana Singh for the Indian Oil Corporation.

2. The petitioner has come up before
the Court questioning the correctness of
the order passed by the respondentCorporation on 6.12.2013 rejecting the
application of the petitioner on the ground
of non-availability of the requisite area of
land
for
installation
of
L.P.G.
distributorship under a particular scheme.

3. Sri Paul submits that the
petitioner had offered additional land
standing in the name of his mother for the
purpose of rectifying the said area in
order to obtain the said dealership as the
same has been cancelled incorrectly. An
application has also been filed before the
respondent for reconsideration and review
of the decision dated 6.12.2013.

4.

Having
considered
the
submissions raised and having perused
the
order,
it
is
clear
from
the
communication given to the petitioner
that the additional land offered by the
petitioner, which was recorded in the
name of his mother, cannot be taken into
account as the mother of the petitioner
would not fall within the 'Family Unit' of
the petitioner as defined under the
guidelines promulgated and contained in
the
brochure
of
the
respondentCorporation which has been produced
before the Court by Smt. Archana Singh.

5. The guideline categorically
defines '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. In view of the said definition the
petitioner, who is of the married status,
will not be able to take advantage of his
254 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
mother's land as she does not come with
the definition of 'Family Unit' of the
petitioner as aforesaid.

7. Consequently, the additional land
offered by the petitioner has been rightly
not
considered
by
the
respondentCorporation. There is no error in the
impugned order dated 6.12.2013.

8. There is no merit in this writ
petition. Rejected.
--------