Smt. Nidhi Chhirolya Vs. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1045624
CourtMadhya Pradesh High Court
Decided OnMar-18-2013
AppellantSmt. Nidhi Chhirolya
RespondentHindustan Petroleum Corporation
Excerpt:
w.p. no. 3496 of  2013 18.3.2013 shri vishal dhagat, learned counsel for the petitioner. heard. petitioner by this petition seeks direction to respondent nos. 1  and   2   to   reconsider   the   application   of   petitioner   for   allotment   of  hamara petrol pump as per advertisement dated 16.9.2011. respondents   advertised   in daily  newspaper  on  16.9.2011   for  distribution of new retail outlet dealership to be set­up by madiyado  road for petrol pump/diesel.   along with application the applicants  were required to submit various documents as per format as also the  residential   certificate.     petitioner   though   furnished   various  documents   including   office   liquidity,   income   certificate,   project  report, mark sheet of high school certificate examination, mark sheet  of graduation, diploma certificate in affidavit, certificate from bank,  experience   certificate,   marriage   certificate;   however,   she   did   not  furnish residential certificate, which led to her non­consideration. on   objection   being   raised   by   the   petitioner   against   non­ consideration   she   was   informed   by   communication   no.  ref  gmo/wz/jabalpur2012/52   dated   15.1.2013   that   as   per   dealer  selection guidelines, a candidate applying for locations advertised in  hamara pump category need to be resident of the concerned district,  which required that the candidates in support of their residence need  to   submit   residence   certificate   in   the   prescribed   format.     as   the  petitioner   had   submitted   domicile   certificate   in   the   name   of   her  husband, in line with the guidelines, her application was rejected. aggrieved by the rejection of application, petitioner has filed  this petition. it is contended that in state of madhya pradesh as per clause 3  (ii)   of   circular   no.  c­3/22/2010/3/,d dated   28.10.2010,   in   case   of  issuance of a domicile certificate in favour of husband, no separate  certificate   is   required   to   be   issued   in   favour   of   wife   and   minor  children.   it is contended that since the petitioner was possessing a  domicile   certificate   issued   in   favour   of   her   husband,   there   was  substantial compliance of the guidelines.  therefore, the respondents  were not justified in rejecting the application for allotment of retail  dealership under hamara pump category.   it is further contended that even later on the petitioner could  obtain a domicile certificate on 25.1.2012.  be that as it may. the circular which has been relied upon by the petitioner to  bolster   the   contention   that   there   was   substantial   compliance   as  domicile certificate was issued in favour of petitioner's husband does  not bar the issuance of domicile certificate in the name of her wife.  therefore,   the   petitioner   could   obtain   a   domicile   certificate   on  25.1.2012.   however, the same is of no assistance to the petitioner  because on the date when the certificate was required the petitioner  was not possessing the same and thus was not fulfilling the eligibility  criteria as is being laid down in the dealer selection guidelines. in view whereof no direction can be issued to respondent nos.  1   and   2   to   consider   the   claim   of   the   petitioner   for   grant   of   retail  dealership under hamara pump category. in the result petition fails and is hereby dismissed.  (sanjay yadav) judge vivek tripathi
Judgment:

W.P. No. 3496 Of  2013 18.3.2013 Shri Vishal Dhagat, learned counsel for the petitioner.

Heard.

Petitioner by this petition seeks direction to respondent Nos. 1  and   2   to   reconsider   the   application   of   petitioner   for   allotment   of  Hamara Petrol Pump as per advertisement dated 16.9.2011.

Respondents   advertised   in daily  newspaper  on  16.9.2011   for  distribution of new retail outlet dealership to be set­up by Madiyado  Road for petrol pump/diesel.   Along with application the applicants  were required to submit various documents as per format as also the  residential   certificate.

    Petitioner   though   furnished   various  documents   including   office   liquidity,   income   certificate,   Project  report, mark sheet of High school certificate examination, mark sheet  of graduation, diploma certificate in affidavit, certificate from Bank,  experience   certificate,   marriage   certificate;   however,   she   did   not  furnish residential certificate, which led to her non­consideration.

On   objection   being   raised   by   the   petitioner   against   non­ consideration   she   was   informed   by   communication   No.  Ref  GMO/WZ/Jabalpur2012/52   dated   15.1.2013   that   as   per   dealer  selection guidelines, a candidate applying for locations advertised in  Hamara Pump category need to be resident of the concerned district,  which required that the candidates in support of their residence need  to   submit   residence   certificate   in   the   prescribed   format.

    As   the  petitioner   had   submitted   domicile   certificate   in   the   name   of   her  husband, in line with the guidelines, her application was rejected.

Aggrieved by the rejection of application, petitioner has filed  this petition.

It is contended that in State of Madhya Pradesh as per clause 3  (II)   of   circular   No.  C­3/22/2010/3/,d dated   28.10.2010,   in   case   of  issuance of a domicile certificate in favour of husband, no separate  certificate   is   required   to   be   issued   in   favour   of   wife   and   minor  children.   It is contended that since the petitioner was possessing a  domicile   certificate   issued   in   favour   of   her   husband,   there   was  substantial compliance of the guidelines.  Therefore, the respondents  were not justified in rejecting the application for allotment of retail  dealership under Hamara Pump category.   It is further contended that even later on the petitioner could  obtain a domicile certificate on 25.1.2012.  Be that as it may.

The circular which has been relied upon by the petitioner to  bolster   the   contention   that   there   was   substantial   compliance   as  domicile certificate was issued in favour of petitioner's husband does  not bar the issuance of domicile certificate in the name of her wife.  Therefore,   the   petitioner   could   obtain   a   domicile   certificate   on  25.1.2012.   However, the same is of no assistance to the petitioner  because on the date when the certificate was required the petitioner  was not possessing the same and thus was not fulfilling the eligibility  criteria as is being laid down in the dealer selection guidelines.

In view whereof no direction can be issued to respondent Nos.  1   and   2   to   consider   the   claim   of   the   petitioner   for   grant   of   retail  dealership under Hamara Pump category.

In the result petition fails and is hereby dismissed.

 (SANJAY YADAV) JUDGE Vivek Tripathi