Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


Sanjay Sharma v. Union Of Of India And Others - WRIT - C No. 14083 of 2007 [2007] RD-AH 9677 (21 May 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).



Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 14083 of 2007

Sanjay Sharma


Union of India & Ors.


Hon. Anjani Kumar, J.

Hon. Dilip Gupta, J.

This petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 28th February, 2007 that has been passed by the General Manager, Indian Oil Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the ''Corporation') withdrawing the Letter of Intent for LPG distributorship at Naujheel, District Mathura. The said order was passed after hearing the concerned parties afresh pursuant to the directions issued by this Court in its judgment and order dated 11th December, 2006 in Writ Petition No.71253 of 2005 that had earlier been filed by the petitioner.

The issue involved in the present petition is regarding the allotment of LPG distributorship for location Naujheel in District Mathura. The Corporation had issued an advertisement in the Newspaper on 2nd February, 2004 inviting applications for allotment of LPG distributorship including the one for Naujheel and the petitioner submitted an application pursuant to the said advertisement and was also called for interview on 24th June, 2004. The Selection Committee recommended the name of the petitioner for allotment of the said LPG distributorship and ultimately a Letter of Intent dated 23rd August, 2004 was also issued in favour of the petitioner. However, one Sri Baikunth Nath Pandey respondent no.3 filed a complaint before the Corporation against the selection of the petitioner. The Corporation then issued a notice dated 4th October, 2005 to the petitioner asking him to show cause why the Letter of Intent issued in his favour may not be withdrawn. The petitioner submitted a reply and ultimately by the order dated 25th October, 2005 the Letter of Intent issued in favour of the petitioner was cancelled. This order was challenged by the petitioner by filing Writ Petition No.71253 of 2005 which was allowed subject to the observations made in the judgment and order dated 11th December, 2006. The matter was thereafter examined afresh by the Corporation and by the order dated 28th February, 2007 it was ordered that the Letter of Intent dated 24th August, 2004 issued to the petitioner shall stand withdrawn.

Clause 17 of the advertisement that had been issued by the Corporation for allotment of LPG distributorship deals with godown and showroom. So far as godown is concerned, it mentions that the area of the plot should be between 20 mtrs. x 18 mtrs. to 32 mtrs. x 30 mtrs and that the applicants must also to indicate whether they have a plot of the aforesaid measurement available in their name or in the name of their wives or their unmarried children or whether they have an appropriate agreement with the owner of the plot.

The petitioner at the time of submission of the application form had indicated the size of the plot for godown as 28 ft. x 180 ft. whereas the requirement was for a plot measuring between 20 mtrs. x 18 mtrs. to 32 mtrs. x 30 mtrs. During the hearing before the General Manager the petitioner explained that the size of the land available with Sri Keshav Deo who was to transfer the land was 60 ft. x 100 ft. and took time to show the original land documents relating to Khasra No.715. The Corporation, however, also took steps to find out the correct position from the revenue records and the lawyers who had been engaged for this purpose reported that Khata No.586 Khasra No.715 measuring 0.40 Hectare belongs to Sri Ram Khiladi, Sri Daryab Singh, Sri Sudhir Kumar, Sri Brijesh Kumar, Sri Bhagwan Swaroop, Sri Haribabu, Sri Ramesh Chand, Sri Gopal and Sri Satish. One of the co-owners Sri Sudhir Kumar had issued a registered power of attorney in favour of Sri Harinder Sharma son of Sri Keshav Deo Sharma. Subsequently, Sri Sudhir Kumar and Sri Brijesh Kumar had also issued a power of attorney in favour of Sri Keshav Deo Sharma. However, as the earlier power of attorney was a registered document, it could have been revoked only through a registered deed but the subsequent power of attorney was not registered and, therefore, was not valid. The Corporation, therefore, concluded that the land in question did not belong to Sri Keshav Deo Sharma and nor did he have any valid authority for giving the affidavit to the petitioner for transfer of the land. Thus, the Letter of Intent was withdrawn by the Corporation.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as Sri Sudhir Kumar and Brijesh Kumar have not raised any objection regarding the power of attorney and, therefore, it was not open to the Corporation not to accept their authority given to Sri Keshav Deo Sharma to file the affidavit. This contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted. The affidavit that had been filed by Sri Keshav Deo Sharma could not have been considered as he had no authority to state that he would transfer the land to the petitioner. The advertisement clearly required the land of a particular dimension for godown. In the present case, the petitioner had indicated the area of the godown to be much less than the required area.  The advertisement contained a clear stipulation that in case any false information is given then in that case the allotment of distributorship can be cancelled without any notice. In view of the aforesaid stipulation the Indian Oil Corporation was justified in withdrawing the Letter of Intent as the petitioner had given a false statement.

We are, therefore, unable to find any infirmity in the order dated 28th February, 2007 of the Corporation withdrawing the Letter of Intent issued in favour of the petitioner. The writ petition is, therefore, liable to be dismissed and is, accordingly, dismissed.

Date: 21.5.2007



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


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 |

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