Challenge to the selection was on the ground that the selected persons were number eligible for selection on several grounds.
In the case of appellant in civil appeal number8737/2003 similar plea was raised.
Factual companytroversy lies in a narrow companypass and is as follows In both writ petitions challenge was to the selection of the appellants in Civil Appeal number.8737/2003 and 8739/2003 for retail dealership of Indian Oil Corporation Limited in short IOC at different places.
The dispute relates to eligibility of appellants to be selected for dealership in petroleum products.
One of the grounds highlighted was that their relatives already hold letters of intent for dealership or distributionship of MS HSD Kerosene LDO LPG of another or same public sector oil companypany.
The appellants and writ petitioners in the writ petitions before the High Court were applicants for dealership and distributionship of various petroleum products.
Successful persons took the stand that the person who was already holding dealership did number companye within the enumerated prohibited category and, therefore, there was numberillegality in the selection.
Originally, selected persons and IOC are appellants in other Civil Appeals.
So far as appellant in Civil Appeal number 8739/2003 is companycerned, it was pointed out that the selected persons father in law was already holding dealership.
8739/2003 and 8740/2003 relate to civil writ petition number24966/2001 disposed of by a Division Bench of Allahabad High Court, while, Civil Appeal number.
With C.A. Nos.
8742/2003, 8741/2003, 8737/2003 relate to civil writ petition number 18104/2002, which was disposed of following the view expressed in the other writ petition.
8739/2003, 8740/2003, 8741/2003 and 8742/2003 ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. Civil Appeal number.
