- (1.) Alleging illegal denial of grant of LPG distributorship for Chalkusha-Seldih and Dumduma under Barkatha Block, the petitioner has sought cancellation of allotment of the said LPG distributorship in favour of respondent No. 6. Pursuant to advertisement dated 25.2.2012 published in daily newspaper namely, Hindustan for appointment of LPG distributorship, the petitioner and respondent No. 6 were sort-listed. The petitioner was awarded maximum marks and the respondent No. 6 was placed below the petitioner. One of the essential requirements for grant of LPG distributorship was to own a plot for godown in the advertised location and the applicant must be resident of the same village/city.
(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though, the respondent No. 6 was not a resident of the same village and the document produced in the present proceeding would indicate that the sale deed for the land purchased by the respondent No. 6 was tampered still, the LPG distributorship was granted to the respondent No. 6. Referring to the field verification report, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the candidature of the petitioner has been rejected on an erroneous ground that the land for godown/showroom is in the name of the father of the petitioner. Referring to clause 3 of the advertisement, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that father is included in the definition of the family thus, the petitioner fulfills necessary eligibility criteria.
(3.) Mr. V. Shivnath, the learned Senior Counsel for the respondent-Indian Oil Corporation submits that the legal notice dated 3.7.2013 sent by the petitioner was replied by the respondent-IOC. The petitioner did not furnished any evidence along with the legal notice dated 3.7.2013 in support of the allegations levelled by him. The award of LPG distributorship in favour of the respondent No. 6 was made after proper field verification and examination of the documents produced by him. Finding no infirmity in the selection of the respondent No. 6 as LPG distributor, the representation made by the petitioner through legal notice dated 3.7.2013 was rejected. The learned Senior Counsel further submits that neither the rejection order dated 14.7.2013 has been challenged nor the finding of the field verification report which is against the petitioner has been challenged by the petitioner and therefore, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed on these grounds alone.;