Writ Petition Nos. 6368 and 6642 of 2011. Case: Suresh and Ors. Vs The Union of India and Ors.. High Court of Bombay (India)
| Case Number | Writ Petition Nos. 6368 and 6642 of 2011 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: R.R. Mantri, Advocate and For Respondents: Alok Sharma, Advocate |
| Judges | S. S. Shinde and V. L. Achliya, JJ. |
| Issue | Commercial Law |
| Judgement Date | March 18, 2016 |
| Court | High Court of Bombay (India) |
Judgment:
S. S. Shinde, J.
-
This Writ Petition takes exception to the advertisement dated 27th July, 2011 [Annexure-D Page-80] for selection of distributors for LPG issued by the respondents. It further also prays for quashing the April, 2011 Guidelines [Annexure-C Page-60].
-
The learned counsel Mr. R.R. Mantri appearing for the petitioner submits that, it is settled position of law that, while distributing public largesse, the same are to be distributed based on the criteria, which have nexus to the object of the particular grant by selecting beneficiaries for effecting transparent procedure. Any law made contrary to the above cannot stand to the scrutiny of test of constitutional validity, and would amount to arbitrariness. In order to achieve the objective of directive principles of State policy and to uplift the members of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes etc., the provision is made for making available the infrastructure as well as corpus funds for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes candidates. The relaxation in age, educational qualification and financial requirement was also made, while considering the candidature of the afore-mentioned categories for distribution of petroleum products. It is submitted that, sometime in the past, there were various arbitrary allotments of such dealerships by respondent No. 1, most of which came to be cancelled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the then Minister Incharge of the Department of respondent No. 1 was also held personally liable. In support of this contention, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner pressed into service exposition of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Common Cause A Registered Society v. Union of India and others AIR 1996 SC 3538. The learned counsel also invited our attention to the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of T.R. Kothandaraman v. Tamil Nadu Water Supply and Drainage Board Engineers Association 1994 [6] SCC 282 and submits that, the classification should be based upon the intelligible differentia. However, in the present case, the criteria laid down by the afore-mentioned guidelines are not based upon the intelligible differentia.
-
It is submitted that, once roster is finalized for new location, locations falling under 'Open' category of the roster are offered to the State Government for direct award of distributorship. It is submitted that, such allotment in favour of State, without following proper procedure like followed in the individual cases, is not proper. It is further submitted that, there is no basis for prescribing minimum age of 21 years and maximum age of 45 years on the date of application for all categories except GP category. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner invited our attention to the clause 7.2 of the specific eligibility criteria for different categories, and submits that, there is no reason why there should be direct award of the distributorship in favour of State. It is submitted that, if the category of Defence Personnel is considered, it is only who died in harness due to attributable causes and disabled in peace due to attributable causes should be entitled to apply. However, the same is not being followed by the respondents. He further invited our attention to the relevant clause in the guidelines, which provides for a personnel serving in different Departments of Central/State Governments and Public Sector undertakings of Central/State Government, who are incapacitated or disabled while performing their duties will be eligible for the said...
To continue reading
Request your trial