1. Home
  2. /
  3. High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad
  4. /
  5. 2017
  6. /
  7. January

Sharad Kumar Gautam vs Bharat Ltd And Others & Others

High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad|03 November, 2017
Court No. - 39
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 50954 of 2017 Petitioner :- Sharad Kumar Gautam Respondent :- Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Kartikeya Saran Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Dilip Gupta,J. Hon'ble Jayant Banerji,J.
The petitioner and private respondent no.4 applied for L.P.G Distributorship that was advertised on 20 October 2016. In draw that was held on 22 March 2017, private respondent no.4-Dindayal Kumar was selected as L.P.G Distributor for Agya, Block Kaptanganj, District Kushinagar. The petitioner is aggrieved by the selection of respondent no.4 as according to the petitioner, he does not satisfy the conditions set out in Clause 12(F) of the guidelines for selection of LPG Distributor.
Clause 12-F, on which reliance has been placed by the petitioner, is as follows:
"F. An undertaking has to be provided by the selected candidate at the time of acceptance of Letter of Intent (LOI) that the Approach Road as specified will be provided within the timeframe as mentioned in LOI. the Approach Road will be verified for its suitability before the issuance of Letter of Appointment (LOA). It would be responsibility of the selected candidate to ensure that the LPG cylinder truck is allowed unhindered access at all times through this approach road to the LPG Godown upon commissioning of the LPG distributorship. In the event of failure of selected candidate to make available the approach road, the LOI is liable to be cancelled along with forfeiture of the amount deposited before the FVC (10% of the applicable security deposit). OMCs will not be held responsible for any investment made by candidate in the construction of the godown without having a proper approach road."
It has been pointed out by Sri Vikash Budhwar, learned counsel appearing for the Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited that the approach road is required to be provided after selection as a Distributor and in fact a Letter of Intent dated 11 August 2017 was issued to the said private respondent no.4 for providing the approach road within four months which period has not expired.
The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner, therefore, cannot be accepted as the approach road has to be provided by the private respondent within four months from 11 August 2017.
The petition is premature. It is, accordingly, dismissed.
Order Date :- 3.11.2017 sfa/ (Dilip Gupta, J) (Jayant Banerji, J)
Disclaimer: Above Judgment displayed here are taken straight from the court; Vakilsearch has no ownership interest in, reservation over, or other connection to them.
  • Dilip Gupta
  • Kartikeya Saran