Prakash Tatia, J. - (1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the parties.
(2.) THESE 2 writ petitions are decided by this common judgment by taking the facts of SBCWP No. 10524/2009 as there is only difference of category of the allottee as one has been allotted the Gas Distributorship under the category of Para -Military Personnel and another in the category of SC Category and there is difference of villages, but rest of the facts are common. The petitioner a dealer of Indane Distributorship at Balotra, District Barmer which was given under the Para Military Personnel Category Market Plan 1996 -1998 as the petitioner's father being Dy. Commandant in BSF has laid down his life for the Nation while fighting with terrorists, has preferred this writ petition to challenge the action of the respondents to give the LPG Cylinder Distributorship under the Rajeev Gandhi Gramin LPG Vitarak Yojana ( hereinafter referred to as the Scheme).
(3.) ACCORDING to learned Counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner being the son of Ex -Army Personnel has been given LPG Gas Distributorship because of the fact situation and the respondents themselves have prescribed the maximum limit to distribute the gas cylinder for each shop for the town upto population of 10 lacs to be 8000 cylinders per month. The petitioner yet has not reached to the limit of 8000 cylinders distribution for his dealership. The respondents who are having monopoly in this trade decided to give new agencies under the Scheme. It is submitted that at one place, the petitioner is not getting the adequate consumers/customers and therefore, is not getting the adequate return and now the respondents are making it very competitive by opening more retail outlets in the nearby area and in the area where the petitioner's dealership is running. It is also submitted by learned Counsel for the petitioner that since it is a controlled commodity, therefore, customers can be provided on the basis of booking of the gas cylinders. Had it been a open market commodity the petitioner would have competed with all others but because of it being controlled item, the petitioner cannot compete. The petitioner therefore, prayed that the respondents may be directed to cancel the process of giving distributorship for 4 places namely Jasol, Gudamalani, Asotra and Indrana as per advertisement dated 17.10.2009 and further the respondents may be directed to make correct assessment of whole situation and take departmental action against the authorities responsible for making such im -practical assessment for opening the distributorship in the four places namely Jasol, Gudamalani, Asotra and Indrana.;