Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

NARENDRA PRATAP SINGH versus UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS.

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Narendra Pratap Singh v. Union Of India And Others. - WRIT - C No. 23722 of 2004 [2007] RD-AH 480 (9 January 2007)

 

This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

Court No. 34

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 23722 of 2004

Narendra Pratap Singh

Vs.

Union of India & Ors.,

*********

Hon. Dr. B.S. Chauhan, J.

Hon. Dilip Gupta, J.

This writ petition has been filed for a direction upon the Indian Oil Corporation to call the petitioner for interview for appointment of LPG distributorship for Katra Medniganj, district Pratapgarh pursuant to the advertisement issued by the Indian Oil Corporation.

Sri C.L. Pandey learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that initially an advertisement was published in the daily newspaper Dainik Jagran on 14th December, 1997 inviting applications for appointment of LPG distributorship of Indane Gas for nine locations and pursuant to the said advertisement, the petitioner submitted an application. However, as no selection was made on the basis of the said advertisement a fresh advertisement was made in the daily newspaper Amar Ujala on 24th August, 2000. The petitioner could not apply as he could not notice the said advertisement.

Sri Prakash Padia learned counsel appearing for the Indian Oil Corporation has placed much emphasis on the advertisement dated 24th August, 2000 published in the daily newspaper Amar Ujala. Clause 12 of the said advertisement clearly stipulates that the persons who had submitted applications earlier should also apply but they will not be liable to pay any fees. It also provides that if no application is submitted the candidature will not be considered. He has, therefore, submitted that since the petitioner did not submit any application pursuant to the said advertisement there was no occasion for the Indian Oil Corporation to call the petitioner for selection and in support of his contention he has placed reliance upon a Division Bench decision of this Court in Gyanendra Pratap Singh Vs. Union of India & Ors,. (2002) 3 UPLBEC 2080.

We have carefully considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties.

It is admitted to the parties that the petitioner did not submit any application pursuant to the advertisement published in the newspaper dated 24th August, 2000. Such being the position, it was not obligatory on the part of the Indian Oil Corporation to call the petitioner for interview as was stipulated in clause 12 of the advertisement. The Division Bench of this Court in Gyanendra Pratap Singh (supra) examined a similar issue and held that as the petitioner therein did not submit a fresh application, the Corporation was justified in not calling the petitioner for interview. The present case is squarely covered by the aforesaid Division Bench decision.

We, therefore, do not find any merit in this writ petition. It is, accordingly, dismissed. Interim order passed earlier stands vacated.  

Date: 9.1.2007

NSC


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.