- (1.) PALOK Basu and D. K. Seth, JJ. The petitioner Nityanand Sharma's father was admittedly a member of Department of the Central Government known as General Reserve Engineering Force having been employed therein as a Driver. The petitioner claims that he is entitled, being the heir of an employee of the Armed Forces who had died, the special quota of allotment of L. P. G. Gas distributionship which is so allocated by the Indian Oil Corporation therefore, the ad vertisement made by the respondents con cerning the L. P. G. gas agency as a general category is incorrect and the petitioner's prayer for allocation of that agency have been wrongly rejected by the respondents. Consequently the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India may be exercised, advertisement may be quashed and the respondents be directed to allot one L. P. G. gas agency in the armed quota for the petitioner.
(2.) SRI Ravindra Rai, learned Counsel for the petitioner has been heard at sub stantial length. He has placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of R. Viswas and others v. Union of India, A. I. R. 1983 SC 658 and Vishaka and others v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1997 SC3011. Dr. R. G. Padia has put in appearance on behalf of the Indian Oil Corporation, while SRI R. C. Shukla Advo cate has appeared on behalf of the Union of India. Both these Counsel have op posed the writ petition. During the course of arguments, it transpired that the petitioner had already filed writ petition No. 8838 of 1997 in which counter and rejoinder-affidavits have been exchanged. The prayer in that writ petition is that the letter dated 13-12-1996 where by the application of the petitioner for allocation of special quota on the grant of certificate to be issued by the respondents be quashed. As prayed the aforesaid writ petition was directed to be listed with the present writ petition as cause of action for both the writ petitions is more or less the same. Both the petitions are consequently being disposed of by this order. Before taking up the matter on merits, it may be pointed out that the petitioner had filed yet another writ peti tion even prior to these two which was disposed of by a Division Bench of this Court on 29th October, 1996 (See writ Petition No. 18423 of 1996) asking the respondents to decide the representation of the petitioner. The petitioner appears to have moved a representation alongwith a certified copy of this order praying for certificate for allocation of special quota and that certificate was refused to him vide the order dated 13-12-1996 giving rise to aforesaid writ petition No. 8838of 1997.
(3.) FURTHER reliance was based on the observation of the Hon'ble Supreme Court made in paragraphs 1, 9 and 14 in the case of R. Viswan (supra) it was con tended by Sri Ravindra Rai that petitioner thus become an active member of the armed force and therefore, for all practical purposes, the aforesaid ruling should be applied to up-hold the claim of the petitioner that he is entitled to a certificate of that effect. It may be pointed out that the argu ment of the learned Counsel suffers from a great fallacy. In the cited decision itself their Lordships of the Hon'b'e Supreme Court have made the personnel working in G. R. E. F. as being members of the armed forces only to attract Article 33 of the Con stitution of India, (emphasis supplied ). Had argument of Sri Ravindra Rai been correct, there was no need to apply the principles of Article 33 alone to the mem bers of the G. R. E. F. and this itself is enough indication that the principles of the G. R. E. F. are not per se members of the armed forces.;