High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Smt. Vijay Goyal v. Ministry Of Petroleum & Natural Gas & Others - WRIT - C No. 8744 of 2003  RD-AH 3995 (8 March 2007)
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.8744 of 2003
Smt. Vijay Goyal
Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas & Ors.
Hon'ble Dr. B.S. Chauhan, J.
Hon'ble Umeshwar Pandey, J.
This writ petition has been filed for quashing the allotment of LPG Dealership for Karnawal, Tehsil Sardhana, District- Meerut and not to permit the opening of LPG Distributorship in favour of respondent no.4 on the basis of allotment dated 10/2/2001 and to decide the representation dated 11/12/2002 (Annex-3).
The facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that an advertisement was issued on 24/8/2000 by the Indian Oil Corporation for allotment of the said Gas Distributorship for the aforesaid area and it was exclusively reserved for women candidates. The last date for submitting the application was 09/10/2000. Interview was held on 18/1/2001, and subsequently the allotment process was cancelled in view of the order passed by the Central Government. Subsequently, it was revised and the petitioner claims that she came to know that the allotment had been made in favour of respondent no.4. Hence this petition.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner was far better than the respondent no.4 and had a preferential claim over the respondent no.4 being a widow and over 40 years of age as provided in the advertisement itself. She has made a complaint, but it has not been considered by any statutory authority, therefore, the allotment in favour of respondent no.4 is liable to be quashed.
Shri Prakash Padia and Shri S.N. Srivastava learned counsel appearing for the Indian Oil Corporation and Bharat Petroleum Corporation have submitted that the writ petition is not maintainable as the order of allotment in favour of respondent no.4 is not even a part of record. More so, the question of preference comes if other things are equal. More so, the petition is highly belated. Allotment had been made in 2001 and the petition has been filed in 2003. Complaint/representation is made to Shri Atal Bihari Bajpayee, former Prime Minister of India and not to any competent authority under law, therefore it was not maintainable and the petition is totally misconceived and is liable to be dismissed.
We have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record.
Admittedly, the order of allotment in favour of respondent no.4 is not a part of record and therefore, cannot be quashed. The petition itself is belated and is liable to be dismissed on this sole ground. Even otherwise, we are of the considered opinion that the issue of preference comes provided the other things are equal. Nothing has been placed before us by the learned counsel for the petitioner to show that all other things between the petitioner and the respondent no.4 were same so that the preference can be given to the petitioner being a widow and over 40 years of age. Representation has not been made to the statutory authority and was not liable to be considered. In the representation allegations of illegal gratification has been made without naming any individual officer, thus such a contention is not worth consideration. Considering the limited scope of judicial review, we are not inclined to entertain the petition. It is accordingly dismissed.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.