Home   |   About us   |   Contact us   |   Request Callback  
 
   
ALREADY A MEMBER ?
Username
Password

Translate

This Page To:

 
JYOTI SWAROOP V/S INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD. & OTHERS , decided on Wednesday, August 31, 2016.
[ In the High Court of Rajasthan Jaipur Bench, Civil Writ Petition No. 254 of 2005. ] 31/08/2016
Judge(s) : VEERENDR SINGH SIRADHANA
Advocate(s) : Anoop Dhand. Krishna Verma, Akhll Simlote.
Judgment Full Text : Existing LawyerServices Members, kindly login above.

Non Members, Enter your email address:- and , to request this judgment.

Alternatively, you may send a request by email to info@lawyerservices.in for the Full Text of this Judgment (chargeable).

LawyerServices Facebook Page

Judgments that may be related:-


  Vijaya Steels Limited, Kallanayakanahalli, Anchepalya Post, Kunigal Taluk Kunigal Versus Bangalore Electricity Supply Company Limited, Bengaluru & Others,   04/10/2016.  

  In Re: Jyoti Swaroop Arora Versus M/s Tulip Infratech Ltd. & Others,   03/02/2015.  

  M/s. National Highways Authority of India Versus M/s. Oriental Structural Engineers Pvt. Ltd.,   16/01/2015.  

  Delhi Development Authority Versus M/S. Bhardwaj Brothers,   01/08/2014.  

  Mahatma Mahto, New Delhi Versus New Delhi Municipal Council (NDMC) Through its Secretary, New Delhi & Others,   25/03/2014.  

  Mahatma Mahto, New Delhi Versus New Delhi Municipal Council (NDMC) Through its Secretary, New Delhi & Others,   25/03/2014.  

  M/s. Cement Corporation of India Ltd. Versus V.K. Arora & Others,   13/02/2014.  

  Ashish Singh Versus High Court Of Judicature At Allahabad,   27/08/2012.  

  Gajanan s/o. Namdeo Kale Versus Sakhubai w/o. Bhimaji Kharat (died)., since no L.Rs. & Others,   14/03/2012.  

  RAGHUVEER KUMAR VERSUS THE DISTRICT BASIC EDUCATION OFFICER,   10/01/2011.  

  M/s. Schlumberger Asia Services Ltd. Versus Oil & National Gas Corporation Ltd.,   09/01/2009.  

  M.S.Associates Versus Union Of India,   31/05/2004.  

  Ram Narain Poply Versus Central Bureau of Investigation ,   14/01/2003.  

  MAHADEV JYOTI UMRANI VERSUS SUMITRA BAI ,   08/01/2003.  

  Nand Kishore Singh Versus State of Bihar,   07/08/1996.  

  Food Inspector Versus Abooty ,   06/09/1989.  

  Indu Engineering And Textiles Ltd. Versus Commissioner, Agra Division,   30/07/1984.  

  Ram Puri Chandigarh Versus Chief Commissioner Chandigarh,   18/02/1982.  

  The Public Prosecutor (A.P.) Versus Legisetty Ramayya & Another ,   12/08/1974.  




#LawyerServices #bestlegalsoftware #legalsoftware #judgment #caselaw









    1. Aggrieved of the order dated 3rd February 2004 (Annexure-22) and of the action of the respondent number 1 in withdrawal of the application for No Objection Certificate from the District Collector Sikar; the petitioner has instituted the present writ application praying for the following relief(s) :(i) quash and set aside the order and application of respondent No. 1 by which the application of NOC has been withdrawn from the District Collector Sikar (Anx. 29).(ii) further please to quash and set the order dated 3.2.2004 (Annexure-22) passed by the respondent No. 2.(iii) further pleased to cancel the advertisement (Annexure.23) issued by the respondent No.1 to the extent of fresh allotment of Retail Outlet at village Dadiya (Daulatpura) Dist. Sikar under female quota(iv) further pleased to quash and set aside the order dated 27.12.04 (Annexure.37) passed by the respondent No.2(v) further pleased to quash and set aside the allotment of Retail outlet of IOC in favour of respondent No.3 on land bearing khasra No. 1242/166 situated at village Dadiya (Daulatpura) Dist. Sikar and(vi) further pleased to direct the respondents Nos.1 and 2 to issue NOC in the name of the petitioner and pass order of allotment for establishing the Retail Outlet of IOC on the land Khasra No. 1241/166 Rakba 0.22 Hectare at village Dadiya (Daulatpura) Dist. Sikar in favour of the petitioner.For This Act Of Kindness The Petitioner Shall Every Pray.2. Briefly the essential skeletal material facts necessary for appreciation of the controversy raised herein are that the petitioner applied for allotment of Retail Outlet on 16th October 2002. It is pleaded case of the petitioner that he purchased land bearing Khasra No. 1242/166 and also deposited conversion charges for conversion of the land for establishment of a Retail Outlet. The respondent - Indian Oil Corporation (for short the respondent-Corporation) also moved an application for grant of Objection Certificate' for establishing the Retail Outlet. The matter was referred to the concerned authorities for necessary action. However in the meantime the sellers of the land involved herein lodged a complaint with the District Magistrate Sikar not to issue No Objection Certificate to the petitioner. Consequently an order was made which became subject matter of S.B. Civil Writ Petition Number 3273 of 2003 wherein the order of the District Magistrate Sikar was quashed with a further direction to decide the matter afresh affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner within seven days of receipt of the copy of the order dated 25th November 2003 passed by this Court. In the meantime another advertisement was issued by the respondent-Corporation on 19.01.2004; inviting applications from the eligible candidates for allotment of Retail Outlet Dealership of Petroleum Products. However the advertisement was limited to female candidates only.3. Learned counsel Mr. Anoop Dhand appearing on behalf of the petitioner reiterating the pleaded facts and grounds of the writ application vehemently argued that the entire proceedings including allotment of Retail Outlet Dealership of Petroleum Products in favour of the respondent number 3 was made for oblique motives and in order to favour respondent number 3 at the instance of the then member of the parliament for Sikar. According to the learned counsel the District Magistrate Sikar declined the application instituted by the respondent-Corporation for the petitioner withdrew his application which was submitted in response to advertisement (Annexure-1) wherein the last date of submission of the application by the eligible candidates was 9th October 2002 by 2.00 PM.4. Referring to the application dated 20th December 2002 instituted by the respondent-Corporation seeking No Objection Certificate for establishment of Retail Outlet in Khasra No. 1242/166 at Daulatpura District Sikar; learned counsel would submit that the proceedings were carried out in an extraordinary haste manner for No Objection Certificate was accorded by the Village Panchayat Daulatpura Panchayat Samiti Piprali District Sikar within two days i.e. 22nd December 2004. The necessary entries by way of mutation were also carried out and the entire process concluded on 27th December 2004. So much so that even the site inspection was carried out on 25th December 2004. which speaks volume about the manner the matter was proceed with at the instance of the then member of the parliament. Referring to the order dated 1st April 2009 made by this Court; the learned Counsel asserted that he moved an application with a prayer to impleaded Mr. Subhas Mehriya as a party respondent to the writ proceedings who was the then member of the parliament for the specific allegations of malafide levelled in the writ application. Though Mr. Akhil Simlote was allowed time to respond to the application but no reply has been filed till date.5. However learned counsel did not dispute the fact that the petitioner withdrew his application vide communication dated 14th November 2003 which has been placed on record along with counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent-Corporation.6. In response to the writ application the respondent- Corporation has filed its counter affidavit. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-Corporation reiterating the stand in the reply while supporting the action of the respondent-Corporation asserted that the writ application itself is not maintainable for the reason that vide Annexure-1 the respondent-Corporation only invited applications from the eligible candidates in order to raise a land bank and it was response to that advertisement the petitioner submitted his application. However the petitioner himself withdrew from the proceedings as would be evident from Annexure-R-1/1 dated 14th November 2003. Furthermore the subsequent advertisement was published on 19th January 2004 inviting applications from eligible candidates for allotment of Retail Outlet Dealers of Petorleum Products only for female candidates. The petitioner could not apply in that category and therefore the issue raised in the instant writ application has become infructuous.7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and with their assistance perused the materials available on records as well as gave my thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions at Bar.8. Indisputably the Annexure-1 the respondent- Corporation invited applications from eligible candidates in order to create a land bank. Moreover there is not even whisper in the advertisement for allotment of any Retail Outlet of Petroleum Products. Further it was none-else but the respondent-Corporation who filed an application seeking No Objection Certificate' from the District Magistrate Sikar to establish a Retail Outlet in Khasra No. 1242/166. Be that as it may the matter was closed vide order 1 dated 3rd February 2004 for the petitioner declined to enter into any agreement by way of lease with the respondent-Corporation. Consequently the respondent-Corporation withdrew the application seeking No Objection Certificate from the District Magistrate Sikar for establishment of Retail Outlet on the land involved herein.9. For the petitioner himself withdrew from the proceedings as would be evident from the order dated 3rd February 2004; the entire controversy raised with respect to subsequent advertisement is of no consequence.10. In the result the instant writ application fails and is hereby dismissed. Application seeking impleadment of the then member of parliament also stands closed.11. No costs.Writ petition dismissed.