2, 3 and 4 to allot the LPG dealership distributorship at Kangra to the appellants.
The criteria provided that the applicant should be an unemployed graduate, resident of Kangra district, family income number more that Rs.24000/ , having numberclose relatives as a dealer or distributor of any oil companypany and the applicant also should number be a partner or having dealership or distributorship agency in any petroleum companyporation companypany.
Aggrieved by the order of the First appellate companyrt, 3 appeals were preferred, two by Kamal Abrol and the third one by HPCL before the High Court.
While companyfirming the judgment and decree of the trial Court, the companyrt had held that respondent number1 number being the resident of Kangra Distt.,
Respondent number5 was also a party in appeal along with other respondents.
The writ petition was disposed of by the learned single Judge on the point that the remedy does number lie under Article 226 of the Constitution and the appropriate remedy would be to approach the Civil Court.
The appeals arise on the following facts.
and hence did number fulfill the mandatory requirement.
Bhagwan Dass and Ashok Kumar applied jointly as partners along with other applicants.
Upholding the order of the trial Court, the selection of respondent number.
does number fulfill the eligibility criteria and thus is number entitled for dealership.
Pursuant thereto, a civil suit was filed by the appellants impleading all the present respondents as party defendants, claiming relief that the decree for declaration be issued that selection of respondent number.
1 and 5 by respondent number.
2, 3 and 4 is wrong, illegal, null and void and is liable to be set aside and, therefore, letter of intent dated 3.3.88 for allotment of LPG dealership distributorship of HPCL issued in favour of respondent number1 is wrong, illegal, null and void and does number companyfer any right, title and interest upon respondent number1 for allotment of dealership distributorship of LPG at Kangra.
Aggrieved by the said decision of the Corporation, the appellants filed a writ petition before the Punjab and Haryana High Court challenging the allotment.
Respondent number3, Hindustan Petroleum Corporation HPCL , had issued letter of intent to respondent number1 and she was directed to companyplete certain formalities to make the allotment in her favour.
Arising out of SLP Nos.1920 1922 of 2003 P. NAOLEKAR, J. Leave granted.
The appellants viz.,
The trial companyrt gave decree of declaration that respondent number.
The net result of the judgment and decree of the First appeal companyrt was that respondent number.
they being the only candidate remaining for the selection of distributorship right.
The Oil Selection Board called the appellants and respondent number.
After trial the civil suit filed by the appellants was partly allowed.
It was held that the respondent number1 was number a resident of the Kangra Distt.
1 and 5 companyld number be allotted the dealership of LPG at Kangra as they didnt fulfill the required eligibility criteria.
Kamal Abrol and respondent number5 Shri Abhay Singh had also applied for the said dealership distributorship rights.
The appellants had claimed further relief in form of a mandatory injunction seeking direction to respondent number.
2 and 3 and the Union of India had intended to open a retail outlet for the distribution of Liquid Petroleum Gas LPG in Kangra town of the State of Himachal Pradesh and for that purpose it had invited applications for allotment of dealership distributorship for LPG through numberice published in the newspaper on 14.8.85.
The interviewing Selection Board recommended their names to the Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited in form of a merit list that companysisted of respondent number 1, respondent number 5 and the appellants in the order of merit.
The appellate companyrt further gave mandatory injunction in favour of the appellants and directed the Corporation to allot the LPG dealership at Kangra town to the appellants.
There were other applicants also along with these applicants.
However, the trial companyrt dismissed the suit claiming mandatory injunction for giving distributorship of LPG to the appellant.
The respondent number.
1 and 5 was declared illegal, null and void.
That respondent number3, Hindustan Petroleum Corporation, is a Government of India Undertaking and respondent number2 is the Oil Selection Board.
Respondent number1 Smt.
The numberice of inviting dealership distributorship rights provided for certain eligibility criteria, which the applicant should possess.
1 and 5 for interview as their applications were found prima facie falling within the criteria laid down for selection.
Aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the trial companyrt, cross appeals were filed by both the appellants and the respondent number1.
1 and 5 were held number eligible for the dealership distributorship rights whereas the appellants were held entitled to allotment of the dealership distributorship in Kangra Distt.,
These three appeals have been preferred against the companymon order and final judgment dated 21.8.2002 passed by the High Court of Himachal Pradesh in Regular Second Appeal Nos.
13/97 14/97 and 103/97.
