1996 (9) TMI 640 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Maintainability of the writ petition.
2. Violation of eligibility criteria for distributorship.
3. Validity of the resident certificate.
4. Family income exceeding the prescribed limit.
5. Close relatives holding dealerships/distributorships.
6. Preference to unemployed graduates.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Maintainability of the Writ Petition:
The respondent raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the writ petition, arguing that the impugned letter of intent dated 7.1.96 was not annexed. The court referenced the Supreme Court decision in Surinder Singh v. Central Government, which mandates the production of the impugned order in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution. However, the court found that the petitioner had requested the document but was denied, and had also filed a Misc. Application for the same. Thus, the court concluded that the non-annexation was not due to the petitioner's negligence, and the objection was dismissed.

2. Violation of Eligibility Criteria for Distributorship:
The eligibility criteria stipulated residency in Thoubal District for at least five years preceding the application date. The petitioner argued that the 3rd respondent was a resident of Imphal District, citing electoral rolls from 1993 and 1995. The 3rd respondent had applied for inclusion in the Thoubal electoral roll only after the application deadline, indicating non-compliance with the residency requirement. The court found that the 3rd respondent did not fulfill the residency criteria, thus violating Clause 2(d).

3. Validity of the Resident Certificate:
The petitioner challenged the resident certificate dated 23.10.95 issued to the 3rd respondent. The certificate was based on an application claiming residency in Thoubal for 9/10 years. However, the court found discrepancies in the respondent's age and residency claims. The certificate was issued without proper verification of the five-year residency requirement. The court held that the certificate was improperly issued and quashed it.

4. Family Income Exceeding the Prescribed Limit:
The petitioner contended that the 3rd and 4th respondents' family incomes exceeded the Rs. 50,000 limit. The court examined the declaration forms, which showed the 3rd respondent's combined family income as Rs. 48,000, and the 4th respondent's salary as Rs. 36,000. Since the 4th respondent was not dependent on his parents, their income was not included. The court found no violation of Clause 2(e) and rejected this contention.

5. Close Relatives Holding Dealerships/Distributorships:
The petitioner argued that the 3rd respondent's father held a distributorship, making the 3rd respondent ineligible under Clauses 2(f) and (g). The court noted that the elder brother of the 3rd respondent was an agent and attorney for K. Jemon Gas Service, but the 1993 Liquified Petroleum Gas Order excluded agents from the definition of a distributor. Thus, the court found no violation of these clauses.

6. Preference to Unemployed Graduates:
The 4th respondent was employed as a Junior Accountant and admitted this in his counter. Despite claims of termination, no evidence was provided. The court emphasized that the scheme intended to prioritize unemployed graduates to address unemployment. The 4th respondent's employment status at the application deadline disqualified him from preference, thus his nomination was quashed.

Relief Granted:
The petitioner sought to quash the selection and the letter of intent dated 7.1.96 and to be appointed as the distributor. The court agreed that the 3rd and 4th respondents did not meet the eligibility criteria. However, since other candidates were not impleaded, no direct relief could be granted to the petitioner. Given the 3rd respondent's current operational status and the essential nature of gas distribution, the court allowed the 3rd respondent to continue for one year, after which the distributorship would lapse and be re-advertised.

Conclusion:
The writ petitions were allowed, and the letter of intent dated 7.1.96 and the resident certificate dated 23.10.95 were quashed. The recommendations for the 3rd and 4th respondents were also quashed. The interim order dated 19.7.96 was vacated.