Allahabad High Court Judgement

Allahabad High Court Judgement

This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice at mail@myadvocates.club
JUDGEMENT HEADLINE : Other Family Members Cannot Be Included In 'Family Unit' For Determining Whether Applicant Owns Requisite Land For Construction Of LPG Cylinder Godown
JUDGEMENT TITLE : Smt. Sunita Singh Vs. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. And Others On 04/17/2017 By Allahabad High Court
CASE NO : WRIT - C NO. 58339 OF 2011
CORAM : Hon'ble Dilip Gupta,J. And Hon'ble Prabhat Chandra Tripathi,J.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

A.F.R.
Court No.39

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 58339 Of 2011

Petitioner :- Smt. Sunita Singh
Respondent :- Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. And Others
Counsel For Petitioner :- Wasim Alam,Anil Kumar Tiwari
Counsel For Respondent :- Vikas Budhwar,K. Srivastava,S.C.,S.K. Mishra,Santosh Srivastava

Hon'ble Dilip Gupta, J.
Hon'ble Prabhat Chandra Tripathi, J.

The Petitioner, Who Responded To An Advertisement Issued By The Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited1 For Grant Of LPG Distributorship Under The Rajiv Gandhi Gramin LPG Vitrak Scheme2 At Dharampur In District Mau, Has Sought The Quashing Of The Order Dated 24 June 2011 By Which The Representation Dated 16 May 2011 Filed By The Petitioner Has Been Rejected. The Said Representation Was Filed By The Petitioner Pursuant To The Judgment Dated 11 May 2011 Rendered In Writ-C No.21194 Of 2011 Earlier Filed By The Petitioner.
The Petitioner Had Submitted The Application For Grant Of LPG Distributorship As A Candidate Belonging To The General Category. The Selection Process Was To Be Conducted By A Committee Consisting Of Two Officers Who Had To Award Marks Based On Information Given In The Application And The Selection Was To Be Done By Draw Of Lots From The Eligible Applicants Securing Minimum Qualifying Marks. For Locations Reserved Under SC/ST Category, The Minimum Qualifying Marks Were 60%, While That For All The Other Categories Was 80%.
The Common Eligibility Criteria For All Categories Contained In Clause 6.1 Of The Brochure Is As Follows :
"Applicant Applying For RGGLV Should :
(i) Be An Indian Citizen;
(ii) Be A Resident Of The Town/village(s) Of The Advertised RGGLV Location
(iii) Have Passed Minimum Xth Standard Examination Or Equivalent From A Recognized Board;
(iv) Be Not Less Than 21 Years And Not More Than 45 Years In Age As On The Date Of Application;
(v) Fulfil Multiple Dealership/distributorship Norm:
Multiple Dealership/Distributorship Norms Means That The Applicant Or Any Other Member Of ''family Unit' Should Not Hold A Dealership/distributorship/RGGLV Or Letter Of Intent (LOI) For A Dealership/ Distributorship/RGGLV Of A PSU Oil Company I.e. Only One Retail Outlet/SKO-LDO Dealership/LPG Distributorship/RGGLV Of PSU Oil Company Will Be Allowed To A ''Family Unit'.
''Family Unit' In Case Of Married Person/applicant, Shall Consist Of Individual Concerned, His/her Spouse And Their Unmarried Son(s)/daughter(s). In Case Of Unmarried Person/applicant, ''Family Unit' Shall Consist Of Individual Concerned, His/her Parents And His/her Unmarried Brother(s) And Unmarried Sister(s). In Case Of Divorcee, ''Family Unit' Shall Consist Of Individual Concerned, Unmarried Son(s)/unmarried Daughter(s) Whose Custody Is Given To Him/her. In Case Of Widow/widower, ''Family Unit' Shall Consist Of Individual Concerned, Unmarried Son(s)/unmarried Daughter(s).

(vi) Have Minimum Total Amount Of Rs. 2 Lakhs Put Together From Saving Accounts In Bank (as On Date Of Application), Free And Unencumbered Fixed Deposits In Scheduled Banks, Kisan Vikas Patra, NSC, Bonds, Any Other Investment Etc. In The Name Of Self Or Family Members Of The "Family Unit" As Defined Above. (In Case Of RGGLV Locations Reserved Under ''SC/ST' Category, Applicants With Less Than Rs.2 Lakhs Are Also Eligible Also Apply). For Evaluation Purpose, Marks Will Be Awarded To Applicants Of All Categories Based On The Amount Mentioned In The Application.

(vii) Own A Suitable Land (plot) Of Minimum 20 Meter X 24 Meter In Dimension At The Advertised RGGLV Location For Construction Of LPG Cylinder Storage Godown.

Own Means Having Clear Ownership Title Of The Property In The Name Of Applicant/family Member Of The ''Family Unit' As Defined In Multiple Dealership/distributorship Norm. In Case Of Ownership/co-ownership By Family Member, Consent Letter From The Family Member Will Be Required.

Land For Construction Of Godown Will Be Considered Suitable, If It Is Freely Accessible Through All Weather Motorable Approach Road (public Road Or Private Road Of The Applicant Connecting To The Public Road) And Should Be Plain, In One Contiguous Plot, Free From Live Overhead Power Transmission Or Telephone Lines. Pipelines/Canals/Drainage/Nallahs Should Not Be Passing Through The Plot;

(viii) Be Physically And Mentally Sound To Be Able To Run The Business;

(ix) Neither Convicted Nor Charges Have Been Framed By Any Court Of Law For Any Criminal Offence Involving Moral Turpitude/ Economic Offences.

(x) Not Be A Signatory To Distributorship/dealerships Agreement Terminated On Account Of Proven Cases Of Malpractice/adulteration Of Any Oil Company."

The Petitioner Submitted An Application Dated 27 November 2009 For Grant Of LPG Distributorship. The Petitioner Was Found Successful In The Draw Conducted On 20 August 2010. A Two-member Committee Conducted The Field Verification And Found That The Petitioner Did Not Own A Plot Of The Dimensions Stipulated, As A Result Of Which The Petitioner Was Declared Unsuccessful And A Communication Dated 10 March 2011 Was Sent To The Petitioner Informing That Her Candidature Had Been Cancelled.
The Petitioner Filed Writ-C No.21194 Of 2011 To Assail The Aforesaid Decision. This Petition Was Disposed Of On 11 May 2011 With The Following Observations :
"The Respondents-Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Have Come With A Case That The Petitioner Does Not Come In The Purview Of ''family Unit' As Defined In Paragraph 4 (e) Of The Brochure, Which Gives Meaning Of The ''family Unit', As Follows:
''Family Unit' In Case Of Married Person/applicant, Shall Consist Of Individual Concerned, His/her Spouse And Their Unmarried Son(s)/daughter(s). In Case Of Unmarried Person/applicant, ''Family Unit' Shall Consist Of Individual Concerned, His/her Parents And His/her Unmarried Brother(s) And Unmarried Sister(s). In Case Of Divorcee, ''Family Unit' Shall Consist Of Individual Concerned, Unmarried Son(s)/ Unmarried Daughter(s) Whose Custody Is Given To Him/her. In Case Of Widow/widower, ''Family Unit' Shall Consist Of Individual Concerned, Unmarried Son(s)/unmarried Daughter(s)."
By Showing Such Paragraph, The Respondents Wanted To Establish Before Us That Since The Applicant Is A Married Person, She Should Be Exclusive Owner Of The Land Or As Co-sharer With Her Spouse, Son And Daughter. For The Sake Of Such Paragraph, Right Of Her Husband As Co-sharer With Other Brothers Can Not Be Treated As ''family Unit'. Hence, No Right Can Be Derived To The Petitioner From Her Husband. Therefore, When By Field Verification The Petitioner's Husband Was Found To Be Co-sharer Of The Property Along With Other Brothers, Selection Of The Petitioner Was Cancelled.
According To Us, The Word ''family Unit' Is Used Loosely In The Brochure And Contrary To The Law Of Succession. It Can Not Override The Law. One Can Be Co-sharer Of A Family Property And His Right In The Share Devolves Upon His Wife, Son And Daughter. If Wife Starts A Business On An Immovable Property With The Consent Of Husband And Other Co-sharers, No Objection Can Be Raised By The Corporation. It Can Only Verify Locale/site For The Sake Of Their Business Promotion, Protection From Any Dispute Out Of Such Land And Evaluation Between Others' Land. Our General Observation Is That Sometimes Site Selection Is Made By The Authority On The Leasehold Land. In The Process, Appropriate Evaluation Is Required To Be Made. The Authority Should Not Show Any Vindictiveness To Suit Any Oblique Purpose.
....................
Against This Background, Factually When We Find That The Cancellation Order Was Passed On 10th March, 2011 And The Same Was Sent To The Petitioner Through Registered Post On 15th March, 2011, And In Between These Two Dates News Item Was Published On 11th March, 2011 And Subsequent Selection Was Held On 14th March, 2011 By Selecting The Respondent No. 3 Herein, Such Exercise Appears To Be Contrary To The Interest Of A Selected Candidate. No Specified Time Has Been Given To The Petitioner To Explain The Position As Mentioned In The Order Of Cancellation Dated 10th March, 2011 Pursuant To Such Paragraph 12.10, The Petitioner Is Entitled To File Her Grievance Before The Concerned Redressal System Within Seven Days From The Date Of Obtaining Certified Copy Of This Order To Get An Opportunity Of Hearing And If She Does So, The Authority Concerned Will Consider The Cause And Finalise The Issue Within A Period Of Seven Days Thereafter. Only After Consideration Of The Grievance Of The Petitioner, The Authority Concerned Will Be Entitled To Call Upon The Respondent No. 3 To Verify Her Record Too To Evaluate Her Right Over The Land. However, No Letter Of Intent Will Be Issued, If Not Already Issued, To Any Candidate. In Case Letter Of Intent Has Already Been Issued, No Letter Of Appointment Will Be Issued For Such Period.
Accordingly, The Writ Petition Is Disposed Of."

The Petitioner Filed A Representation Pursuant To The Aforesaid Directions Contained In The Judgment Dated 11 May 2011. The Corporation Rejected The Representation By A Detailed Letter Dated 24 June 2011. It Is This Order Dated 24 June 2011 That Has Been Assailed In This Petition.
The Basic Issue That Needs To Be Examined In This Petition Is As To Whether The Petitioner Owned A Suitable Plot Of Minimum 20 X 24 Mts. Dimension At The Advertised Location. 'Own" Has Been Defined To Mean Having Clear Ownership Title Of The Property In The Name Of Applicant/family Member Of The 'Family Unit' As Defined In The Multiple Dealership/distributorship Norm. Further, In Case Of Ownership/co-ownership By A Family Member, Consent Letter From The Family Members Was Necessary. The Petitioner Gave Details Of The Land/plot In Column 9 Of The Application As Khata No.809, Gata No.2925 Admeasuring 46 Meters X 42 Meters For The Purpose Of Construction Of LPG Godown At Dharmapur, Vishunpur And Mentioned The Following Names As Members Of The The Family Unit:
I) Smt. Paudhari Singh - Mother-in-Law
Ii) Rakesh Behari Sing - Brother-in-Law (Dewar)
Iii) Anand Pal Singh - Brother-in-Law (Dewar)
Iv) Shivanand Singh - Husband
V) Harischandra Singh - Father-in-Law (not Real)
Vi) Sriram Singh - Father-in-Law (not Real)
Vii) Smt. Durgawati Devi - Mother-in-Law (Aunt)
Viii) Sri Ranjit Singh - Brother-in-Law (Dewar)
Ix) Sri Sumit Sing - Brother-in-Law (Dewar)

The Petitioner Had Indicated That The Said Plot Belonged To The 'Family Unit' As Defined In The Eligibility Criteria Contained In Clause 6.1 Of The Brochure. The Impugned Order Mentions That During Field Verification Conducted On 9 November 2010, It Was Found That Gata No.2925, Of Which The Total Area Is 0.420 Hectares, Was Owned By Four Persons Namely, (i) Late Balwant Singh, (ii) Late Suvash Singh, (iii) Harishchandra Singh And (iv) Sunil Singh. Late Balwant Singh, One Of The Four Co-owners, Had Three Sons, Including Shivanand Singh (husband Of The Petitioner). 'Family Unit', In Case Of A Married Applicant, Would Consist Of The Individual Concerned, Spouse And Unmarried Sons/daughters. The Impugned Order Then Mentions That As There Were Four Co-sharers Of Gata No.2925, Each One Would Have 0.130 Hectares Share And, Therefore, The Share Of Late Balwant Singh (father Of The Husband Of The Petitioner) Would Come 0.130 Hectares. It Also Mentions That Late Balwant Singh Had Three Sons Including Shivanand Singh (husband Of The Petitioner). The Relevant Portion Of The Impugned Order, On The Basis Of Which The Representation Filed By The Petitioner Was Rejected, Is As Follows:
"The Minimum Piece Of Land (plot) Which Is Required For The Purposes Of Establishment Of LPG Cylinder Storage Godown Is 20 M X 24 M However As Late Balwant Singh Is One Of The Four Co-owners Owning 0.130 Hectares And He Had 03 Sons One Being Sri Shivanand Singh And The Total Land Is 0.130 Hectares Alleged To Be Owned Which Itself Is Not As Per The Minimum Requirement Of 20 M X 24 M Thus The Land Cannot Be Considered For The Purposes Of Selection Of RGGLV Dealership. To Be More Precise 0.130 Hectares Does Not Conform To The Minimum Requirement Of 20 M X 24 M As The Land In Question As Shown To Be Owned By Late Balwant Singh Is Less Than 20 M X 24 M And In View Of The Said Fact There Is No Fault Committed By The Corporation In Rendering You Unsuitable."

A Perusal Of The Aforesaid Portion Of The Order Indicates That The Corporation Was Under An Impression That Even 0.130 Hectares Would Not Conform To The Minimum Requirement Of 20 X 24 Mts. This Statement Does Not Appear To Be Accurate For The Reason That 0.130 Hectares, When Converted Into Square Meters, Would Come 1300 Sq. Meters And The Requirement Of 20 X 24 Mts. Is Only 480 Sq. Meters. It Is Only When 0.130 Hectares Is Divided By 3 (late Balwant Singh Had Three Sons) That The Share Of Husband Of The Petitioner-Shivanand Singh Would Come To 0.043 Hectares Which Would Be 430 Sq. Meters Which Is Less Than 480 Sq. Meters.
However, The Calculation Indicated In The Impugned Order Does Not Appear To Be Correct. If There Were Four Co-sharers Of Gata No.2925 Admeasuring 0.420 Hectares, Then The Share Of Each Co-sharer Would Be Only 0.105 Hectares. Thus, The Share Of Late Balwant Singh Would Only Be 0.105 Hectares And On His Death, It Would Devolve On His Three Sons Including Shivanand Singh (husband Of The Petitioner). The Share Of Shivananad Singh Would, Therefore, Be Only 0.035 Hectares Which Would Come To 350 Sq. Meters. This Is Obviously Less Than The Minimum Requirement Of 480 Sq. Metes.
However, It Needs To Be Noted That The Requirement Is Not Of 480 Sq. Meters But Of 20 Meters X 24 Meters Dimension. This Fact Has Not Been Noted In The Impugned Order But In Any Case, Whatever Be Dimension, The Area Would Still Be Less Than 480 Sq. Meters.
The Contention Of Learned Counsel For The Petitioner Is That 'Family Unit' As Defined In The Brochure Should Not Be Accepted And The Shares All The Co-sharers Who Had Given Consent Should Also Be Taken Into Consideration For The Purpose Of Grant Of Distributorship. In Other Words, The Contention Is That The Share Of The Brothers Of Shivanand Singh Should Also Be Taken Into Consideration. For This Contention, Learned Counsel Placed Reliance On The Observations Made By The Court While Disposing Of Writ-C No.21194 Of 2011 On 11 May 2011 Earlier Filed By The Petitioner.
Sri Vikas Budhwar, Learned Counsel Appearing For The Corporation Has, However, Submitted That The Definition Of 'Family Unit' Contained In The Brochure Can Alone Be Considered For Grant Of LPG Distributorship And The Petitioner Cannot Be Permitted To Enlarge The Definition Of 'Family Unit' By Including Some Other Persons.
We Have Considered The Submissions Advanced By Learned Counsel For The Parties.
The Requirement Contained In Clause 6.1(vii) For Award Of LPG Distributorship Is That The Applicant Must Own A Suitable Land (plot) Of Minimum 20 X 24 Mts Dimension. 'Own' Has Been Defined To Mean Having Clear Ownership Title Of The Property In The Name Of The Applicant/family Member Of The 'Family Unit' As Defined In The Multiple Dealership/distributorship Norm. In Case Of Ownership/co-ownership By A Family Member, Consent Letter From The Family Members Will Be Required. Clause 6.1(v) Requires The Applicant To Fulfil The Multiple Dealership/distributorship Norm Which Is As Under:
"Multiple Dealership/Distributorship Norms Means That The Applicant Or Any Other Member Of ''Family Unit' Should Not Hold A Dealership/distributorship/RGGLV Or Letter Of Intent (LOI) For A Dealership/distributorship/RGGLV Of A PSU Oil Company I.e. Only One Retail Outlet/SKO-LDO Dealership/LPG Distributorship/RGGLV Of PSU Oil Company Will Be Allowed To A ''Family Unit'."

'Family Unit' Has Been Defined To Mean :
''Family Unit' In Case Of Married Person/applicant, Shall Consist Of Individual Concerned, His/her Spouse And Their Unmarried Son(s)/daughter(s). In Case Of Unmarried Person/applicant, ''Family Unit' Shall Consist Of Individual Concerned, His/her Parents And His/her Unmarried Brother(s) And Unmarried Sister(s). In Case Of Divorcee, ''Family Unit' Shall Consist Of Individual Concerned, Unmarried Son(s)/unmarried Daughter(s) Whose Custody Is Given To Him/her. In Case Of Widow/widower, ''Family Unit' Shall Consist Of Individual Concerned, Unmarried Son(s)/unmarried Daughter(s)."

The Petitioner Is Married. Thus, The Petitioner Was Required To Own A Suitable Land (plot) Of Minimum 20 X 24 Mts. Dimension And Since 'own' Is Defined To Mean Having Clear Ownership Title Of The Property Either In The Name Of Applicant Or In The Name Of Family Members Of The 'Family Unit' As Defined In The Multiple Dealership/distributorship Norm, 'Family Unit', In The Case Of The Petitioner, Would Include Only Her Spouse And Unmarried Sons/daughters. The Share Of The Brothers Of The Husband Of The Petitioner Cannot Be Included For The Purpose Of Determining Whether The Petitioner Owned A Suitable Land/plot Of Minimum 20 Mts. X 24 Mts. Dimension.
The Contention Of Learned Counsel For The Petitioner, However, Is That Though The Petitioner Is Married, The Share Of Her Husband As Well As The Other Co-sharers, Namely The Two Brothers Of The Husband Of The Petitioner Should Be Included Since They Have Given Consent. To Support This Contention, Learned Counsel For The Petitioner Has Placed Reliance Upon The Observations Made In The Judgment Rendered In Writ Petition No.21194 Of 2011 Earlier Filed By The Petitioner. Though The Division Bench Did Observe That The Word 'Family Unit' Is Used Loosely In The Brochure And If The Wife Starts A Business On An Immovable Property With The Consent Of The Husband And Other Co-sharers, No Objection Can Be Raised By The Corporation But The Petition Was Disposed Of By Observing That The Petitioner Should Be Provided An Opportunity To Explain Her Grievance Which Was Directed To Be Decided Within Seven Days. This Observation Cannot, In Any Manner, Mean That The Share Of Any Other Person Not Covered By The Definition Of The 'Family Unit' Can Be Taken Into Consideration. The Court Did Not Strike Down The Definition Of 'Family Unit' And Only An Opportunity Had Been Granted To The Petitioner Since No Opportunity Had Been Granted Before Cancelling The Selection.
This Issue Was Examined By A Division Bench Of This Court In Ravi Kumar Vs. Union Of India & Ors.3. The Petitioner Sought To Question The Legality Of The Definition Of The Expression 'Family Unit' In Clause 10 Of The Brochure For Selection Of Dealers/retail Outlets. It Was Sought To Be Contended That Under The Above Condition, A Multiple Dealership Norm Has Been Put Into Place, Under Which Any Other Member Of The Family Unit Should Not Hold A Dealership, Distributorship Or A Letter Of Intent For The Allotment Of A Dealership Or A Distributorship Of An Oil Company. In Other Words Only One Retail Outlet Dealership Or Distributorship Of An Oil Company Would Be Allotted To A Family Unit. In The Case Of An Applicant Who Is Married, The Family Unit Has Been Defined To Consist Of The Individual, His Or Her Spouse And Unmarried Sons And Daughters. In The Case Of An Unmarried Person, The Family Unit Is Defined To Include Parents And Unmarried Brothers And Sisters. The Submission Of The Petitioner Was That This Was A Discriminatory Provision And Violated Article 14 Of The Constitution Since Parents Of An Unmarried Applicant Had Been Brought Within The Purview Of The Expression 'Family Unit', Whereas In The Case Of A Married Individual, The Parents Had Been Excluded. After Placing Reliance Upon A Decision Of The Supreme Court In Mahindra Kumar Gupta Vs. Union Of India4, The Division Bench Rejected The Contention Of The Petitioner And The Observations Are As Follows:
"The Object And Purpose Of The Disqualification Is To Ensure That There Should Not Be A Concentration Of Retail Outlets, Dealerships And Distributorships Of An Oil Company In One Family. These Dealerships Or, As The Case May Be, Retail Outlets And Distributorships, Are Allotted By State Owned Oil Companies. Consistent With The Directive Principles Of The State Policy, An Effort Is Made To Ensure Dispersal Of Ownership So That A Fair And Equal Opportunity Is Granted To All Members Of Society To Apply For The Allotment Of Such Dealerships, Distributorships And Retail Outlets. There Can Be No Gainsaying The Fact That These Allotments By The State Owned Oil Companies Are Highly Sought After, Providing As They Do An Important Source Of Income To The Allottee. Hence The Norm That There Should Be A Dispersal Of Ownership Cannot Be Faulted Since It Is Based On A Criterion Which Is Rational. How A Family Should Be Defined For The Purposes Of The Allotment Of A Retail Outlet, Distributorship Or Dealership, Is A Matter Of Policy So Long As The Criterion Which Is Adopted, Is Based On Logic And Reason. The Definition Of The Expression "family Unit", In The Present Case, Postulates That Where An Applicant Is Married, His Or Her Family Should Be Read To Consist Of The Spouse And Unmarried Children. Where, However, A Person Is Not Married, The Parents And Siblings Are Included As Members Of The Family.
The Petitioner Has A Grievance In Regard To The Inclusion Of Parents Within The Definition Of A Family In The Case Of An Unmarried Applicant. The Issue Before The Court Is Whether This Assessment By The State Owned Oil Companies For Defining A Disqualification Or, As The Case May Be, Eligibility Is Arbitrary And Perverse. We Are Unable To Hold That It Is So. The Nature Of The Definition Has A Rational Nexus With The Object Sought To Be Achieved, Which Is The Dispersal Of Ownership Of Such Distributorships, Dealerships And Retail Outlets."
(emphasis Supplied)

The Division Bench Clearly Observed That The Definition Of 'Family' For The Purpose Of Award Of Distributorship Is A Policy Decision And So Long As The Criteria That Is Adopted Is Based On Logic And Reason And Has A Rationale Nexus With The Object Sought To Be Achieved, It Will Not Be Appropriate To Enlarge The Definition. The Division Bench Observed That It Was Unable To Hold That It Was Not Based On Logic And Reason Or That It Had No Nexus. Same Logic Would Apply When The Definition Of 'Family Unit' Is Applied To The Dimension Of A Plot Necessary To Be Owned By The Applicant.
Reference Can Also Be Made To The Decision Of The Supreme Court In Sangeeta Singh Vs. Union Of India & Ors.5. The Dispute Related To The Eligibility Of The Appellants Before Supreme Court To Be Selected For Dealership In Petroleum Products. The Challenge Before The High Court To The Selection Was That The Selected Persons Were Not Eligible On Several Grounds, One Of Them Being That The Relatives Were Already Holding Letter Of Intent For Dealership/distributorship. So Far As The Appellant Was Concerned, It Was Pointed Out That The Selected Person Namely, Father-in-law, Was Already Holding A Dealership. The Successful Person Took A Stand That Persons Who Were Already Holding Dealerships Did Not Come Within The Enumerated Prohibited Category. The High Court Held That No Doubt The Terms And Conditions Of Grant Of Dealership Mentioned That If The Daughter-in-law Holds A Dealership Then The Father-in-law Disqualifies But A Literal And Narrow Meaning Should Not Be Given And If The Father-in-law Holds A Dealership, The Daughter-in-law Is Also Disqualified. The Supreme Court Held That It Was A Well Settled Principle In Law That The Court Cannot Read Anything Into A Statutory Provision Or A Stipulated Condition Which Is Plain And Unambiguous. The Judgment Of The High Court Was, Therefore, Set Aside.
It Is, Therefore, Difficult For The Court To Accept The Submission Of Learned Counsel For The Petitioner That The Definition Of 'Family Unit' Should Be Expanded And For A Married Applicant, Not Only Her Husband But Other Family Members Should Also Be Included For The Purpose Of Determining Whether The Applicant Owns The Requisite 20 X 24 Mts. Of Land (plot).
The Impugned Order, Therefore, Does Not Call For Any Interference As The Petitioner Admittedly Does Not Satisfy The Requirement Of Owning 20 X 24 Mts. Of Land For Award Of LPG Distributorship.
The Writ Petition Is, Accordingly, Dismissed.

Go to Navigation