Veena Devi v. The Union Of India And ORS
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.18333 of 2013 =========================================================== Veena Devi Wife Of Sri Akhilesh Singh, Resident Of Village And P.O. Shahwajpur Sarai, Police Station - Sitamadhi, District - Nawada .... .... Petitioner
Versus
1. The Union of India through Secretary, Ministry Of Petroleum, New Delhi
2. Indian Oil Corporation Limited through Its Managing Director, 3a, Maurya Lok Complex, Dak Bunglow Road, Patna
3. The General Manager, Indian Oil Corporation Limited, Kisan Sewa Kendra, 3a, Maurya Lok Complex, Dak Bunglow Road, Patna
4. The Senior Divisional Retails Sales Manager, Patna Division Office, Indian Oil Corporation Limited, 3a, Maurya Lok Complex, Dak Bunglow Road, Patna
5. The Divisional Manager, Indian Oil Corporation Limited, 3a, Maurya Lok Complex, Dak Bunglow Road, Patna
6. Smt. Meera Kumari Wife of Sri Vijay Kumar Resident of Village - Panchu, Block and P.O. And P.S. Hisua, District - Nawada .... .... Respondents =========================================================== Appearance:
For the Petitioner : Mr. Rajesh Ranjan,Advocate Mr. Sanjeev Kumar, Advocate For The Respondents: Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha,Advocate Mr. Amlesh Kumar Verma, Advocate Mr. Abhimanyu Deo, Advocate =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIKASH JAIN ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 14-08-2015 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent Corporation.
2. Present writ petition has been filed for quashing the result of evaluation for allocation of Kisan Sewa Kendra, i.e. Rural Retail Outlet of Petrol/Diesel of Indian Oil Corporation at village Manjhawe (on Manjhawe - Sitamarhi Road) in the district of Nawada whereby the respondent no. 6 was wrongly declared as the first in the list and the petitioner was relegated to second
Patna High Court CWJC No.18333 of 2013 dt.14-08-2015 position.
3. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that in the result of the evaluation on completion of the interview, the respondent no. 6 has been ranked as first and the petitioner has been ranked as second whereas the application of the respondent no. 6 was liable for rejection inasmuch as her document relating to residential status was forged and fabricated and for which a representation has been made by the petitioner before the respondent Corporation which however has been rejected. It is further submitted that the residential certificate of the respondent no. 6 is unreliable, as she habitually procures Voter I. Cards from different places where such dealerships are proposed. On this basis, she has submitted her application in the past variously claiming to be a resident of different places as found suitable.
4. Learned counsel for the respondent Corporation on the other hand appears and opposes the writ petition on the ground that such rejection of the petitioner's representation objecting to the residential certificate of the respondent no. 6 is in accordance with law, for the reason that the said residential certificate has duly been issued by the competent authority being the Circle Officer, Hisua Block, District Nalanda and thus acted upon.
5. Be that as it may, the writ petition is being disposed
Patna High Court CWJC No.18333 of 2013 dt.14-08-2015 of with consent of the parties granting liberty to the petitioner to approach the appropriate forum for redressal of his grievance with a fresh representation raising all points, which if filed within a period of one week hereof, shall be disposed of within a further period of three months thereafter in accordance with law.
6. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. (Vikash Jain, J) Chandran U