Nirmala Devi v. Union Of India And ORS.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH 101-2 cases

 



Date of Decision:28.11.2023 CWP No.22 of 2018 Nirmala Devi ....Petitioner vs.

Union of India and others ....Respondents CWP No.776 of 2018 Sharmila Devi ....Petitioner vs.

Union of India and others ....Respondents

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL

Present:

Mr. Nishchal Chetanya Manchanda, Advocate for Mr. Jagdish Manchanda, Advocate for the petitioner in both the petitions Mr. Ashish Kapoor, Advocate for respondents No. 2 to 4 in both the petitions Mr. Rajnish Gupta, Advocate for respondents No. 5 in both the petition *** JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J. (ORAL) 1.

By this common order, CWP No. 22 of 2018 and CWP No. 776 of 2018 are hereby adjudicated as common questions of law and facts are involved. With the consent of both sides, facts are borrowed from CWP No. 22 of 2018.

2.

The petitioner through instant petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India is seeking setting aside of selection of respondent No. 5 as LPG distributor under SC (W) category. 3.

The Indian Oil Corporation Limited (in short "IOCL") advertised LPG distributorship at Bhuna, District Kaithal under SC(W) PARAMJIT KAUR SAINI 2023.11.28 17:22 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment

CWP No.22 of 2018 -2- 2023:PHHC:150690 category alongwith 52 other locations in the State of Haryana. The petitioner, like other candidates, applied for the distributorship. Draw of lots took place on 15.11.2017. The respondent No. 5 came to be selected. The petitioner is assailing selection of respondent No. 5 for distributorship of LPG. The petitioner made a representation to IOCL against selection of respondent No. 5. The IOCL adverted with all the allegations of the petitioner and did not find any substance in the allegations. Accordingly, distributorship was allotted to respondent No. 5. 4.

Learned counsel for IOCL submits that gas agency stands allocated to respondent No.5 who is operating since 2018. The corporation had allotted distributorship to respondent No.5 after adverting with all the issues raised by the petitioner. The respondent-corporation found all the allegations of the petitioner against respondent No.5 incorrect and baseless. 5.

Faced with this, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he has no instruction from his client and petitions may accordingly be disposed of.

6.

The respondent No. 5 is operating since 2018 and IOCL at no stage has found fault in her allotment. Thus, in the wake of statements of both sides, the petitions stand disposed of.

(JAGMOHAN BANSAL) JUDGE 28.11.2023 paramjit Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No PARAMJIT KAUR SAINI 2023.11.28 17:22 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment