- (1.)Heard Sri Nikhil Kumar for the petitioner, Sri Arvind Kumar Goswami for respondent no.1 and Sri Mahboob Ahmad for respondents no.2 and 3.
(2.)The petitioner has called in question the decision of the third respondent, Area Manager, Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., Gorakhpur cancelling her candidature for Rajiv Gandhi Gharelu LPG Vitrak (RGGLV) at Mehnajpur, Azamgarh. The cancellation has been ordered on the ground that the petitioner has failed to submit no objection certificate in regard to establishment of a godown over Gata Nos.1382 and 1456 from one of the co-sharers namely Kalp Nath S/o Ganpat despite repeated opportunities.
(3.)The challenge is on the ground that in fact, there was no need of submitting a no objection certificate from Kalp Nath, as the site in respect of which proposal was submitted had fallen to the exclusive share of the husband of the petitioner in an oral family partition held in the year 2008. The case of the petitioner is that in the year 2011 when she submitted the application, her husband was the exclusive owner in possession of the land in question. However, on advice of the officials of the Indian Oil Corporation, her husband approached the civil court by filing Original Suit No.2299 of 2012 seeking permanent prohibitory injunction against Kalp Nath as well as other co-sharers restraining them from interfering in his possession. In the written statement filed by Kalp Nath in the said suit, he admitted that there had been oral family partition but, according to him, the same did not have the approval of the authorities. He also did not dispute the specific case of the plaintiff that since the date of oral family settlement, he as well as other co-sharers are in exclusive possession of their respective shares. The suit was initially dismissed by the trial court, but in appeal, it was decreed by judgement dated 17.12.2016 granting a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction in favour of the plaintiff restraining the defendants from interfering in his possession in regard to the land which had fallen to his share in the oral family partition. The petitioner had submitted the entire documents in that regard before the authorities alongwith representation dated 16.01.2017 but which had been ignored from consideration by the third respondent while passing the impugned order dated 21.02.2017, which thus, according to the petitioner, suffers from manifest error of law.