Jayanta Kumar Biswas, J. - (1.) The petitioner in this writ petition dated 29.1.2008 is seeking a mandamus commanding the Indian Oil Corporation and its officials to fill the vacancy for L.P.G. distributorship at M.G. Road, Raigunj, Uttar Dinajpur, occurred due to death of the original distributor according to the prescribed procedure of the corporation, and not to permit the tenth respondent, Sumitra Devi Agarwala, to the run the distributorship.
(2.) The relevant facts are these. The distributorship was commissioned under D.G.R. category in the year 1976. The D.G.R. had sponsored one Wing Commander S. Bhowmick for the distributorship as a measure of his re-settlement. On 23.2.1996 Bhowmick applied to the corporation seeking permission to induct Sumitra in the distributorship as the financial partner. The proposed partnership deed mentioned in its clause 5 that in case of death or retirement of any of the partners, the remaining partner would be at liberty to continue the partnership, a partnership at will, with the approval of the corporation. By a letter dated 8.5.1996 the corporation approved Sumitra's induction. Bhowmick died on 13.4.2003. Sumitra submitted an application dated 29.12.2003 seeking the corporation's approval to run the distributorship in terms of clause 5 of the proposed partnership deed that was presumably accepted by the corporation.
(3.) The petitioner made a complaint dated 6.8.2007 to the Petroleum Minister of the Central Government. He alleged that Sumitra was running the distributorship illegally, since the distributorship meant for an ex-army man could not be given to a civilian. By a reply dated 13.9.2007 the corporation informed the petitioner that there was no scope to transfer the distributorship from one person to another, since in a case of termination of distributorship the vacancy is to be notified. It is to be noted that in his complaint dated 6.8.2007 the petitioner did not call upon the Minister or the corporation to transfer the distributorship to him. The petitioner then sent a reminder complaint dated 14.9.2007 expressing hope that the defence quota distributorship would be re-allocated to any ex-army man or needy ex-army family of Raigunj, but it should not be given to a civilian. By a letter dated 15.11.2007 the corporation gave a further reply to the petitioner's complaint dated 6.8.2007. It was stated in this reply that Sumitra having been lawfully inducted as the financial partner in the distributorship was not indulging in any illegal practice.;