MARNTA RANI Vs. UNION OF INDIA
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
UNION OF INDIA
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.)This writ petition at the instance of the petitioner who is a physically handicapped person is directed against the decision of the Indian Oil Corporation Limited cancelling/withdrawing with immediate effect the Letter of Intent No. R:S:IC:Chant Road dated 22.3.1988 issued in favour of the petitioner.
(2.)In pursuance of an advertisement inviting applications for allotment of retail outlet/dealership at Chant Road, District Faridabad, Haryana, the petitioner and respondent No. 4 subimitted their applications for allotment of said retail outlet/dealership reserved for physically handicapped persons or Government employees who were disabled while on duty. One of the criteria/conditions to be fulfilled by the intending applicant was that the applicant should not be less than 21 years and more than 50 years of age on the date of application. The Oil Selection Board (hereinafter to be referred to as the Board) interviewed the petitioner as also the respondent No. 4 and on completion of the said interview prepared a panel wherein the respondent No. 4 was placed at Serial No. I and the petitioner was placed at Serial No. 2. In pursuance of the aforesaid position in the panel prepared by the Board the respondent No. 2, the Indian Oil Corporation Limited issued a Letter of Intent in favour of the respondent No. 4. Subsequently, thereto the Board revised its decision and came to the conclusion that the respondent No. 2 had not completed 21 years of age and that his date of birth was 30.10.1969. The said decision was taken by the Board without notice to the respondent No. 4. Pursuant to the aforesaid reversal of the dedsion by the Board the Letter of Intent issued in favour of respondent No. 4 was withdrawn and the petitioner was held to be entitled to the said retail outlet.
(3.)Subsequently, a letter dated 7.3.1988 was issued on behalf of the Indian Oil Corporation by which the Letter of Intent dated 23.11.1987 issued in favour of respondent No. 4 was cancelled/withdrawn with immediate effect. The legality and validity of the aforesaid decision of the respondent No. 2 was challenged before this Court by the respondent No. 4 through a writ petition which was registered and numbered as CIVIL WRIT PETITION 485/1988. The petitioner as also the respondent No. 4 were heard in the aforesaid writ petition and thereafter this Court by its judgment and order dated 20.10.1994 allowed the writ petition filed by respondent No. 4 and set aside the letter dated 7.3.1988 issued by respondent No. 2. This Court by the aforesaid judgment further directed the Oil Selection Board or its appropriate bodies to reconsider the question afresh after hearing both the petitioner and respondent No. 4.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.