RAJIBA LOACHAN PATRO Vs BHARAT PETROLEUM CORP. OF INDIA .
Bench: H.L. GOKHALE,J. CHELAMESWAR
Case number: C.A. No.-007704-007705 / 2013
Diary number: 15917 / 2012
Advocates: KEDAR NATH TRIPATHY Vs
B. KRISHNA PRASAD
Page 1
1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 7704-7705 OF 2013
(Arising out of SLP(C) Nos.19572-19573/2012)
RAJIBA LOACHAN PATRO Appellant(s)
:VERSUS:
BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION OF INDIA & ORS. Respondent(s)
O R D E R
Leave granted.
2. Heard Mr. P.N. Mishra, learned senior counsel
appearing for the appellant, and the counsel for the
respondents.
3. This appeal seeks to challenge the judgment
and order dated 17.11.2011 passed by the High Court
of Orissa in Writ Petition (C) No.20630 of 2010,
whereby the High Court has allowed the writ petition
filed by respondent No.5 herein. The appellant
Page 2
2
sought review of that order by filing Review
Petition No.64 of 2012 which was rejected by order
dated 21.3.2012. This order is also challenged in
the present appeal.
4. The short facts giving rise to the filing of
this appeal are this wise. The first respondent
Bharat Petroleum Corporation had issued an
advertisement for allotment of L.P.G. Dealership in
various districts of Orissa under various
categories. Respondent No.5 applied for a location
known as Jagannath Prasad in Ganjam District which
was reserved for a Scheduled Caste candidate.
Respondent No.5 belongs to Scheduled Caste. One of
the requirements for the L.P.G. dealership was that
the person concerned ought to have land at that
particular place and he should have document also in
support, showing that he is in possession of that
land as on 20.11.2009, the last date for submitting
the applications. Respondent No.5 did not have the
requisite document showing possession of the
concerned parcel of land on that date and,
therefore, he could not be found eligible for the
L.P.G. Dealership. The other candidates who applied
Page 3
3
for L.P.G. Dealership at Jagannath Prasad in Ganjam
District were also not found suitable. As per the
Policy of the Bharat Petroleum Corporation, it has
been specified that if none of the candidates are
found suitable for the location reserved for SC/ST
category, it will be re-advertised under the open
category. The respondent company, therefore, issued
a fresh advertisement on 31.10.2010 for allotment of
L.P.G. Dealership in such locations under open
category.
5. It is this second advertisement which was
challenged by respondent NO.5 by filing a writ
petition before the High Court. This petition has
come to be allowed by the Orissa High Court. The
appellant, who is an open category candidate, sought
review of that order by filing Review Petition No.64
of 2012 and that review petition has come to be
rejected vide order dated 21.3.2012. Both these
orders are challenged in this appeal.
6. Having heard both the counsel for the
parties, it is very clear that the High Court was in
error in allowing the writ petition filed by
Page 4
4
respondent No.5, for the reason that respondent No.5
was not owning the concerned parcel of land at that
particular place. What is important is to have a
parcel of land at the particular place where L.P.G.
Dealership is to be allotted. He claims to have
owned another parcel of land after the last date of
the first advertisement i.e. 20.11.2009. In the
circumstances, we set aside the judgment and order
passed by the High Court. The second advertisement
is valid and steps in consequence thereto are held
justified. The writ petition filed by respondent
No.5, being Writ Petition No.20630 of 2010, will
stand dismissed. Hence, the Review Petition will
stand disposed of as not requiring any order
thereon. The appeal is allowed accordingly, though
without any order as to costs.
..........................J (H.L. GOKHALE)
.........................J (J. CHELAMESWAR)
New Delhi; August 30, 2013.