0

IntraCourt Mandamus appeal is usually warranted only when palpable infirmities or perversities are noticed: High Court Of Meghalaya

All the points which have been raised had been meticulously considered by the learned Single Judge and had been extensively dealt with in the impugned judgment and order. The Hon’ble High Court Of Meghalaya before The Hon’ble Chief Justice Mr. Justice Biswanath Somadder and The Hon’ble Mr. Justice W. Diengdoh held such an opinion regarding the case of Biolin Kurbah Vs. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. & anr [WA No.11/2021]. 

The facts of the case were related to an impugned judgment and order dated 9th December 2019, passed by a learned Single Judge in WP (C) No.466 of 2018 (Smti. Biolin Kurbah v. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited & anr) wherein the writ petition was dismissed. The appellant again filed a writ petition. It was stated that respondent no.1 Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited had advertised for the appointment of Regular/Rural Retail Outlet Dealerships, in East Khasi Hills District, Meghalaya, in the local dailies dated 5th November 2014. Following the advertisement, the petitioner submitted the required particulars. Correction in the documents was asked to be made by the petitioner. It was stated by the petitioner that even after the corrections were made and submitted, the application was rejected on the ground that the writ petitioner‟s candidature was not found to be eligible for allotment of the Dealership as the land offered did not meet the National Highway norms. 

The counsel representing the appellant emphasized on the submissions made by the learned judge and showed relevant documents including the letter of the Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited that addressed the appellant/writ petitioner and her reply. While the counsel for HPCL also showed the court the various documents where it was categorically informed to the writ petitioner about the letter where she mentioned the plot offered by her was not matching the frontage of the plot as given in her original application. 

The Hon’ble Court stated “… There is no doubt – in the fact of the instant case – that the appellant/writ petitioner, by her representation dated 21st January, 2017, was essentially seeking to redefine the original land dimensions and the same cannot come within the meaning of permitted rectification or an additional document. The learned Single Judge has even taken note of this fact, as also the fact that the appellant/writ petitioner, having participated in the evaluation conducted by a Land Evaluation Committee (LEC), had not raised any objection to its finding and as such it cannot be held that the concerned authority had acted unreasonably or arbitrarily in rejecting the application of the appellant/writ petitioner.”

The Hon’ble High Court Of Meghalaya considering the submissions ruled out that “ we do not find any merit in the instant IntraCourt Mandamus appeal, which is liable to be dismissed and stands accordingly dismissed along with MC (WA) No.59 of 2021.”

Click here to read the Judgment

Judgment reviewed by Bipasha Kundu

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Open chat