Suresh Kumar Rajak v. Indian Oil Corporation Limited

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.14220 of 2019 ====================================================== Suresh Kumar Rajak S/o Sri Nandlal Rajak, Resident of Co-operative Colony, Madhopara, P.S. K.Hat, PO Purnea, Dist. Purnea, Bihar, Pin No.854301. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

Indian Oil Corporation Limited through its Chief Managing Director, G-9, Ali Yavar Jung Marg, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400051. 2.

The General Manager, Indian Oil Corporation Limited, Lok Nayak Jai Prakash Bhawan, 5th Floor, Dak Bunglow Chaowk, Patna-800001 3.

Senior Divisional Retail Sales Manager, Indian Oil Corporation Limited, Begusarai, Divisional Office, Begusarai 4.

Senior Manager, Marketing Division, Indian Oil Corporation Limited, Begusarai Divisional Office, Begusarai 5.

Sanjay Kumar Ram, S/o Chulhai Ram, Resident of Jhawari, Kumrahwa, PS Jalalgarh, Dist-Purnea ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Rana Vikram Singh, Advocate.

For the Respondent/s :

Mr.Ankit Katriar, Advocate.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PURNENDU SINGH ORAL ORDER 22-02-2023 Heard Mr. Rana Vikram Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. Ankit Katriar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Indian Oil Corporation Limited.

2. The present writ petition has been filed for cancelling the allotment of Kisan Seva Kendra dealership made in favour of the private respondent - Sanjay Kumar Ram by the Indian Oil Corporation Limited at Bada Idgah, Block-Amour, District-Purnea, Bihar under the SC category.

3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that though the petitioner was declared

Patna High Court CWJC No.14220 of 2019(4) dt.22-02-2023 2/3 qualified for selection of Kisan Seva Kendra dealership, but the same was settled / commissioned in favour of the private respondent - Sanjay Kumar Ram in spite of the fact that petitioner vide letter dated 05.10.2016 had made complaint against the private respondent - Sanjay Kumar Ram regarding furnishing incorrect information about description of land. Thereafter, vide letter dated 20.10.2016, petitioner had requested to inquire into the particulars submitted by the private respondent. When no action was taken by the respondent, petitioner was forced to seek information under Right to Information Act on 09.02.2017, but no information was given to the petitioner. Vide letter dated 27.02.

2017, petitioner again requested the respondent to inquire into the particulars submitted by the private respondent. Finally, the Corporation vide Letter dated 14.12.2017 informed the petitioner that after thorough inquiry, the allegations levelled against the private respondent were found to be incorrect. Thereafter, petitioner made several representations requesting therein for cancellation of the allotment of dealership made to the private respondent. When no action was taken, petitioner was forced to file the present writ petition.

4. Mr. Ankit Katriar, learned counsel appearing on

Patna High Court CWJC No.14220 of 2019(4) dt.22-02-2023 3/3 behalf of the Indian Oil Corporation submitted that the complaint made by the petitioner was duly considered and the allegation levelled against the private respondent by the petitioner was found to be incorrect and subsequently the file was closed. The proper adjudication with respect to the complaint made by the petitioner took long time which affected the general public in the area. Finally, the dealership has been settled / commissioned in favour of Sanjay Kumar Ram - private respondent no.5. The writ petition being devoid of merit is fit to be dismissed.

5. Considering the fact that the candidature of the petitioner was not found suitable for allotment of dealership, the next candidate who had fulfilled the requisite criteria in terms of the advertisement has been allotted the dealership after giving proper opportunity to the petitioner and considering his complaint.

6. This Court finds no merit in the writ petition and accordingly, it stands dismissed.

(Purnendu Singh, J) Mantreshwar Aditya/- U