Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 145 views

    Durgawati Devi v. Union of India

    Uploaded by

    Karan Gupta
    The Supreme Court of India dismissed the petitioner's special leave petition against the Allahabad High Court's order rejecting her application for an LPG dealership. [The High Court had found that on the last date for application submission, the petitioner did not own the required land, as she only had an agreement for sale and not the ownership title. The Supreme Court affirmed this finding and rejected the petitioner's argument that she had since acquired ownership, noting that relaxation of eligibility criteria would be discriminatory against other applicants.]

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Durgawati Devi v. Union of India

    Uploaded by

    Karan Gupta
    145 views4 pages
    The Supreme Court of India dismissed the petitioner's special leave petition against the Allahabad High Court's order rejecting her application for an LPG dealership. [The High Court had found that on the last date for application submission, the petitioner did not own the required land, as she only had an agreement for sale and not the ownership title. The Supreme Court affirmed this finding and rejected the petitioner's argument that she had since acquired ownership, noting that relaxation of eligibility criteria would be discriminatory against other applicants.]

    Original Description:

    Article 226- HC Cannot Relax Terms & Conditions Of A Tender Notice: Supreme Court of India

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Supreme Court of India dismissed the petitioner's special leave petition against the Allahabad High Court's order rejecting her application for an LPG dealership. [The High Court had found that on the last date for application submission, the petitioner did not own the required land, as she only had an agreement for sale and not the ownership title. The Supreme Court affirmed this finding and rejected the petitioner's argument that she had since acquired ownership, noting that relaxation of eligibility criteria would be discriminatory against other applicants.]

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    145 views4 pages

    Durgawati Devi v. Union of India

    Uploaded by

    Karan Gupta
    The Supreme Court of India dismissed the petitioner's special leave petition against the Allahabad High Court's order rejecting her application for an LPG dealership. [The High Court had found that on the last date for application submission, the petitioner did not own the required land, as she only had an agreement for sale and not the ownership title. The Supreme Court affirmed this finding and rejected the petitioner's argument that she had since acquired ownership, noting that relaxation of eligibility criteria would be discriminatory against other applicants.]

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 4

    IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

    CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

    SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C)No.37479/2016

    DURGAWATI DEVI Petitioner(s)

    VERSUS

    UNION OF INDIA THR. ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY & ORS.Respondent(s)

    O R D E R

    This special leave petition is against a judgment and order

    dated 8th March, 2016, passed by the Lucknow Bench of Allahabad High

    Court dismissing Writ Petition No.4717 (M/B) of 2016 filed by the

    petitioner as devoid of merit.

    Pursuant to an advertisement issued, inter alia, in the

    newspaper Amar Ujala, the petitioner applied for dealership of

    Liquified Petroleum Gas (LPG) in District Gonda under the Rajiv

    Gandhi Gramin Liquid Petroleum Gas Vitrak Yozana (RGGLPGVY).

    The Brochure on selection of RGGLPGVY, inter alia, provided

    that the applicant should own a plot of land of adequate size at

    the advertised RGGLPGVY location, for construction of godown for

    storage of 5000 kg of LPG in cylinders, or ready LPG cylinder

    storage godown of 5000 kg capacity.

    Signature Not Verified

    Digitally signed by
    SUSHMA KUMARI
    Clause 6H (iii) explains ‘own’ to mean having clear ownership
    BAJAJ
    Date: 2019.10.14
    16:31:26 IST

    title of the property in the name of the applicant, or in the name


    Reason:

    of family members of the ‘Family Unit’ of the applicant as defined


    -2-

    in multiple dealership/distributorship norms, or land belonging to

    parents and grandparents (both maternal and paternal) of the

    applicant, as on the last date for submission of applications as

    specified in the advertisement or corrigendum (if any) in case of

    ownership/co-ownership) by family members.

    Admittedly, as on the last date for submission of applications

    in terms of the advertisement referred to above, the petitioner did

    not own land as required. The petitioner only had an agreement for

    sale in her favour. It is well-settled that execution of a sale

    agreement does not transfer ownership/title. Ownership can only be

    acquired by a registered deed of conveyance. The petitioner was

    not eligible as on the last date for submission of applications.

    Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner strenuously

    contended that a deed of conveyance has since been executed and the

    petitioner is now the owner of the land. However, it is not

    disputed that as on the relevant date, that is the last date for

    submission of applications, the petitioner was not the owner of the

    land.

    The High Court cannot, and rightly did not, in exercise of

    power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, relax the

    terms and conditions of a tender notice.


    -3-

    Such relaxation would be patently discriminatory, for it would

    then be open for other applicants ineligible on the last date for

    submission of applications to contend that, they could have

    acquired eligibility subsequently.

    In our view, the High Court rightly dismissed the Writ

    Petition, challenging the rejection of the candidature of the

    petitioner as devoid of merit. The impugned judgment and order

    does not call for interference. Accordingly, the special leave

    petition is dismissed.

    …………………………………………………..J
    [INDIRA BANERJEE]

    …………………………………………………..J
    [ M.R. SHAH]

    New Delhi;
    October 4, 2019.
    -4-

    ITEM NO.55 COURT NO.16 SECTION XI

    S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

    Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 37479/2016

    (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 08-03-2016


    in WP No. 4717/2016 passed by the High Court Of Judicature At
    Allahabad, Lucknow Bench)

    DURGAWATI DEVI Petitioner(s)

    VERSUS

    UNION OF INDIA THR. ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY & ORS.Respondent(s)

    Date : 04-10-2019 This petition was called on for hearing today.

    CORAM : HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDIRA BANERJEE


    HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.R. SHAH

    For Petitioner(s) Mr.Kamal Mohan Gupta,Adv.


    Mr.Shiv Kumar Tripathi,Adv.
    Mr.Umang Tripathi,Adv.
    Ms.Sheela Mishra,Adv.
    Mr.Sanjay Kumar,Adv.
    Mr.Anil Kumar,Adv.
    Mr. Dr.Rajeev Sharma, AOR

    For Respondent(s) Ms.Pinky Anand, ASG


    Mr.Bharat S.,Adv.
    Ms.Diksha Rai,Adv.
    Mr.Chakitan V.S.Papata,Adv.
    Mr.R.B.Yadav,Adv.
    Mr.Raj Bahadur,Adv.
    Mrs.Anil Katiyar,Adv.
    Mr. Anurag Kishore, AOR

    UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following


    O R D E R

    Heard learned counsel for the parties.


    The Special Leave Petition is dismissed.
    Reasons to follow.

    (SUSHMA KUMARI BAJAJ) (BEENA JOLLY)


    SENIOR PERSONAL ASSISTANT BRANCH OFFICER
    ( The Signed Order is placed on the file)

    You might also like