- (1.) M. Katju, J. By means of this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for a mandamus directing the District Magistrate, Basti to issue final No Objection Certificate in the light of the Government Order dated 18- 12-2002 so that the petitioner may be able to carry on dealership of kerosene oil. The petitioner has also prayed that the respondents be directed not to modify/cancel the order dated 18-12-2002. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.
(2.) IT is alleged in paragraph 2 of the petition that in pursuance of an advertisement dated 24-6-2001 inviting applications for allotement of dealership of Kerosene Oil by respondent No. 4 Bharat Petroleum Corporation, the petitioner also applied. IT is alleged that the petitioner was duly qualified in all respects and was an educated unemployed graduate. One of the conditions of eligibility was that the applicant should be a resident of district Basti for at least a period of six months prior to the making of the application. The other condition was that the application or if he/she is dependent on his/her parents then the gross income for the relevant year ought not to be more than Rs. 2 Lakhs. IT is alleged in paragraph 5 of the petition that the petitioner was eligible as she was staying with her father at Basti. The petitioner was married to Vinay Kumar Singh son of Sri Surendra Pratap Singh resident of Kasba Badalganj, district Gorakhpur on 6-12-2000. It is alleged in paragraph of the petition that immediately after the petitioner's marriage her father-in-law was murdered in a dacoity on 11-12-2000 and a case under Section 396, IPC is pending. Due to this tragic event and superstitions the family members of the petitioner's husband labelled the petitioner as an unlucky woman for the family. It is alleged in paragraph 9 of the petition that in such surcharged atmosphere the petitioner Court not live at her in- laws house and returned to her parental house in district Basti and started living her father. It is alleged in paragraph 10 of the petition that her husband followed her to Basti where, both of them are living. It is alleged that both petitioner and her husband are unemployed and hence the petitioner applied for the dealership to the Oil Selection Board. It is alleged in paragraph 12 of the petition that the respondent No. 5 who is a active member of the ruling party and is also holding the post of Chairman of the District Co-operative Kraya Vikraya Samiti Ltd. Basti lodged a complaint before the Chairman of the Oil Selection Board dated 24-4-2001 alleging that the petitioner was a married lady and was living with her husband at Gorakhpur and hence was not eligible for the dealership in question. It was further alleged that the income of the father of the petitioner was beyond the upper limit fixed in the advertisement. True copy of the complaint is Annexure-1 to the writ petition. Similar complaints to other officers were also made who made enquiries and also approached the petitioner regarding the complaint and provided her a copy of the same. It is alleged in paragraph 16 of the petition that a Member of Parliament who had earlier made a complain later withdrew. However, the Oil Corporation Selection Board held enquiries regarding this complaint as is evident from the letter dated 31-5-2001 addressed by the Chairman of the Selection Board to the General Manager of the Oil Corporation vide Annexure-3 to the writ petition. It is alleged in paragraph 20 of the petition that the Naib Tahsildar and the concerned Lekhpal examined the complaints and both reported that the petitioner was living with her father. Copies of the reports are Annexure-4 and 5 to the writ petition. It is alleged in paragraph 21 of the petition that the District Magistrate also enquired into the matter and the LIU submitted a report that the petitioner was living with her father at Basti vide Annexure-6 to the writ petition. The Chief Minister also asked the District Magistrate. Gorakhpur to submit a report and the District Magistrate assigned the work to the SDM, Gola, district Gorakhpur who reported on 16-7-2001 that the petitioner was living with her father and husband at Basti vide Annexure-7 to the writ petition. In the meantime letter of Intent was issued to the petitioner by the respondent No. 4 on 9-8-2001 vide Annexure-8 to the writ petition. It is alleged in paragraph 24 of the petition that the petitioner has purchased three plots of land for this purpose vide Annexure-9 to the writ petition. The petitioner was given No Objection Certificate for setting up a dealership at the acquired plots from the Department of Explosives, Agra. It is alleged in paragraph 27 of the writ petition that the petitioner was awaiting final No Objection Certificate from the District Magistrate, Basti when she received the order dated 5-10-2001 by which the domicile certificate granted to her was cancelled on the direction of the Commissioner and Secretary Revenue Board vide Annexure-10 to the writ petition.
(3.) IT is alleged in paragraph 28 of the petitioner that the order dated 5-10-2001 was passed behind the back of the petitioner without offering any opportunity of hearing to her. Hence she filed Writ Petition No. 33145 of 2001 in this Court and the Court passed a Stay order on 10-10-2001. Thereafter affidavits were exchanged and the petition dismissed by judgment dated 13-11- 2002, which has been quoted in paragraph 29 of the writ petition and has also been annexed as Annexure-11 to the writ petition. A perusal of the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No. 33145 of 2001 dated 13- 11-2002 shows that the petition was dismissed on the ground that a finding of fact has been recorded in the enquiry that the petitioner does not live in Basti but she is living in Gorakhpur with her husband. This was a finding of fact based on relevant materials and after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Hence this Court held that it cannot interfere with this finding of fact in writ jurisdiction. IT may be mentioned that the aforesaid writ petition was dismissed in view of the report of the Task Force Committee. IT is alleged in paragraph 31 of the writ petition that other authorities had given report in favour of the petitioner and hence the respondent No. 5 exerted political pressure to get the matter enquired through a Task Force Committee to harass the petitioner. Hence the petitioner made a representation to the State Government vide Annexure-12 to the writ petition. IT is alleged in paragraph 32 of the writ petition that many authorities had given reports in favour of the petitioner and hence the respondent No. 5 by exerting political pressure got an order dated 17-9-2001 issued by the Commissioner Basti Division whereby a direction was given to re-enquire the matter through the Task Force Committee. True copy of the said order dated 17-9-2001 is Annexure-13 to the writ petition. It is alleged in paragraph 34 of the petition that the Principal Secretary. Revenue U. P. considered the representation of the petitioner and passed an order dated 22-9-2001 vide Annexure-14 to the writ petition stating that since the matter has already been enquired into by the District Magistrate, Basti who was the competent authority to give domicile certificate, hence there was no need to get it enquired into by the Divisional Task Force. Subsequently the order dated 5-10-2001 vide Annexure-10 was cancelled by the respondent No. 1 vide order dated 18-12-2002 Annexure-15 to the writ petition. True copy of the Government Order dated 18-1-2000 framing the guidelines for issuing domicile certificate is Annexure-16 to the writ petition. It is alleged in paragraph 37 of the writ petition that the Commissioner, Basti Division has misinterpreted the judgment of this Court dated 13-11-2002 Annexure- 11 to the writ petition and has written a letter dated 4-1-2003 to the State Government alleging that the order of the State Government dated 18-12-2002 is not in accordance with the judgment of this Court dated 18-12-2002. Hence it needs to be reviewed. True copy of the letter dated 4-1-2003 is Annexure-17 to the writ petition. It is alleged that the respondent No. 5 had written several letters to various authorities in this connection and the petitioner had apprehension that the order dated 18-12-2002 may be modified in view of the pressure of the respondent No. 5. It is alleged that the sole motive of the respondent No. 5 is to somehow get the dealership of the petitioner cancelled.;