LexaceLexace Ask the AI ›
โš–๏ธ Ask the AI about your situation:๐Ÿš— Car Accident๐Ÿ’ผ Work / Job๐Ÿ  Housing / Eviction๐Ÿ‘ช Family / Divorce๐Ÿ“‹ Contract Dispute๐Ÿ’ฐ Money Owed

INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD. versus MEENA KUMARI AND ORS.

Citation: [2007] 5 S.C.R. 1058 · Decided: 01-05-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Disposed off

Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD. 
โ€ข 
.--
v. 
MEENA KUMARI AND ORS. 
MAY I, 2007 
B 
[S.B. SINHA AND MARKANDEY KA TJU, JJ.] 
Constitution of India, 1950; Article 226: 
c 
Writ Petition-Writ of Mandamus/or direction to appellant-Corporation 
to grant her licence for Petrol Pump in preference to other applicant on 
ground of residential requirement-Held: High Court was right in directing 
the Corporation to grant the licence to respondent no. l in preference to 
other applicant on the ground of residential requirement in terms of guidelines 
on the subject. 
D 
The writ petitioner is a resident of village Jheenjhak, district Kanpur 
Dehat and is a war widow. On the other hand, respondent No. :! in this appeal 
who is also a war widow of an ex army personnel is a resident of district 
Farrukhabad, Respondent No. 1 filed the impugned writ petition in the High 
Court praying for a writ of mandamus directing the appellant-Indian Oil 
E Corporation Limited, to grant her a licence for retail outleUpetrol pump in 
pursuance of the Notification dated 30.12.1977 which was allowed by the High 
Court. Hence, the present appeal. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
F 
HELD: 1.1. One of the terms mentioned in the policy guidelines for 
selection of dealers/distributors was that preference would be given to the 
) 
candidate belonging to the district in which the proposed dealership/ 
distributorship is advertised. [Para 5) (1059-EJ 
1.2. In the Fact and circumstances of the case, the High Court was right 
G in directing that respondent No. 1 should have been given preference and 
granted the licence for the petrol pump since she is a resident of kanpur 
Dehat for which locality the dealership was being granted, she had preference. 
[Pa.ra 6) [1059-F) 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 7215 of2000. 
H 
1058 
INDIAN OILCOPRN. LTD."ยท MEENA KUMARI [MARKANDEY KA TJU,J.] 
j 059 
From the Final Judgment and Order dated 14.09.2000 of the High Court A 
:i 
of Judicature at Allahabad in Civil Misc. Petition No. 40236 of 1999. 
H.K. Puri for the Appellant. 
Dinesh Dwivedi, (for K.L. Mehta & Co.) for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
MARKANDEY KAT JU, J. I. This appeal has been filed against the 
impugned judgment and order dated 14.9 .2000 of the High Court of Judicature 
at Allahabad in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 40236 of 1999. 
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 
B 
3. Respondent No. I, Smt. Meena Kumari, filed the impugned writ C 
petition in the High Court praying for a writ of mandamus directing the 
appellant, Indian Oil Corporation Limited, to grant her a licence for retail 
outlet/petrol pump in village Jheenjhak, district Kanpur Dehat, in pursuance 
of the Notification dated 30.12.1977. 
4. The writ petitioner is a resident of village Jheenjhak, district Kanpur D 
Dehat and is a war widow whose husband was an army personnel who died 
during the 1971 war. On the other hand, respondent No. 2 in this appeal, Smt. 
Asha Devi, who is also a war widow of an ex army personnel, is a resident 
of district Farrukhabad. 
5. One of the terms mentioned in the policy guidelines for selection of E 
dealers/distributors of 1977 was that preference would be given to the candidate 
belonging to the district in which the proposed dealership/distributorship is 
advertised. 
6. In these circumstances, we are of the opinion that the High Court was 
right in directing that respondent No. 1 Smt. Meena Kumari should have been p 
given preference and granted the licence for the petrol pump. Since she is a 
resident of Kanpur Dehat for which locality the dealership was being granted, 
she had preference. 
7. For the reasons given above, we find no merit in this appeal. The 
appeal is dismissed accordingly. No costs. 
G 
S.K.S. 
Appeal dismissed.