Patna High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.15551 of 2011 ====================================================== 1. Sanjay Kumar Singh S/O Sri Arun Kumar Singh R/O Paradih, P.S. Keoti, District Darbhanga .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The Union Of India Through Secretary, Ministry Of Petroleum & Natural Gas, New Delhi 2. The Director (Marketing), Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.,G-9, Ali Nagar, Jangs Marg, Mumbai 3. The General Manager, Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., 5th Floor, Lok Nayak Jai Prakash Bhawan, Dak Bunglow Road, Patna.-1 4. The Senior Divisional Retail Sales Manager, Krishna Complex, Akhara Ghat Road, Muzaffarpur Divisional Office, Muzaffarpur .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. N.K. Agrawal, Sr. Advocate Mr. Dhananjaya Nath Tiwari For the Respondent/s : Mr. Anil Kumar Jha, Sr. Advocate Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KISHORE KUMAR MANDAL ORAL ORDER 9 30-07-2013 The Indian Oil Corporation Ltd (for short “I.O.C.L.”) published an advertisement on 24.08.2009 (Annexure-2) inviting applications for Retail Outlet on different locations/places including one at Delahi on Darbhanga-Samastipur Highway in the district of Darbhanga. The same was meant for open category candidate. The petitioner finding himself eligible applied for the said Retail Outlet. On preliminary scrutiny, he was found most suitable and was placed at Sl. No. 1 in the panel. The petitioner received a communication dated 11.8.2011(Annexure-1) whereby he was struck off from the said panel on an investigation made by the competent authority of I.O.C.L. on the complaint(s) received
Facts
Patna High Court CWJC No.15551 of 2011 (9) dt.30-07-2013 2 against selection of the petitioner for the said location. The said order dated 11.8.2011 has been impugned in the present writ petition.
Legal Reasoning
judgment of this Court in the case of M/S Indian Oil Corporation versus Raj Kumar Jha 2012 (2) P.L.J.R. 783 for the proposition that the Corporation being the State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution is supposed to act fairly, reasonably and uniformly and has to be objective in its approach. Once the standard is set out in the advertisement, the Corporation has to adhere to said standard. Patna High Court CWJC No.15551 of 2011 (9) dt.30-07-2013 9 This Court has no manner of doubt that the petitioner misrepresented the fact which was brought to the notice of the authority by way of complaint and, on verification, it was revealed that the petitioner did not hold the required area as well as the dimension of land as per the notice inviting tender. The application has no merit and it is accordingly
Arguments
Heard Mr. N.K. Agrawal, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Anil Kumar Jha, learned Senior Counsel for the I.O.C.L. and Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha for the private respondent. The parties have exchanged pleadings. Mr. Agrawal learned counsel submits that prior to the empanelment of the petitioner, site verification was made by the respondents before calling in the applicants for interview. The panel of three persons was prepared thereafter wherein the petitioner was placed at Sl. No. 1. The Brochure/Guidelines of the I.O.C.L. does provide a Grievance Redressal System in Clause 18 thereof but such complaint can be filed only by the aggrieved person. Aggrieved person would mean and include only the empanelled candidates. He submitted that a person who is not empanelled can not file any such complaint. The respondent authority acted in a grossly illegal manner in entertaining such complaint and making further investigation to find the petitioner ineligible in providing appropriate/suitable plot of land for the construction of the Outlet/Dealership. The petitioner had offered 2300 sqr mtr of the land on the said location. The advertisement Patna High Court CWJC No.15551 of 2011 (9) dt.30-07-2013 3 (Annexure-2) requires the plot of land measuring 45 mtr on the road side/front side and 45 mtr. in length. The plot offered by the petitioner at the said location was 45 mtr facing the road and was 45 mtr in length. The respondents were, therefore, wholly unjustified in dis-empanelling the petitioner on the ground that plot offered by the petitioner did not meet the required dimension as advertised. Mr. Anil Kumar Jha, per contra, submitted that the petitioner in the application form in Column No. 12 gave out that he held 2300 sqr mtr of land. An undertaking/declaration was signed by the petitioner that information given/set out in the application were true to his knowledge and any wrong information/suppression of facts will disqualify him from being considered for the Dealership. The notice inviting application required the minimum dimension of the land. 45 mtr in the frontage and 45 mtr in length was clearly set out therein. Length and width together gives out the size or area of the land. On further investigation, it was found that the petitioner did not hold the required area/dimension on the plot offered by him. As per the terms of advertisement, the respondents required minimum size of 45 mtr X 45 mtr of land at the advertised location which comes to 11 kathas 10 dhurs of land. The lease deed obtained by the Patna High Court CWJC No.15551 of 2011 (9) dt.30-07-2013 4 petitioner and submitted alongwith the application form was only in respect of 11 kathas of land. The aforesaid fact emerged from the enquiry report submitted in this regard on the complaint lodged against his selection. The complaint was lodged against the petitioner and the second empanelled candidate. Enquiries were made in relation to both the allegations. Apart from the size/area of land offered by the petitioner, the other objection raised in the complaint with regard to adjacency/connectivity of the plot to the pitch road was not found substantiated in the enquiry. In the said report, it has been found that the area of land offered by the petitioner was only 1943.2 sqr. mtr as against the minimum required area of 2025 sqr mtr. The advertisement calling for application particularly declares the minimum plot size of 45 mtr front and 45 mtr depth. Having found the land offered by the petitioner not as per the dimension required under the notice/advertisement as also the total area of land offered by the petitioner was not sufficient, the petitioner was held not suitable and the impugned communication was issued. Mr. Jha further submitted that from perusal of the different clauses of the Brochure/guidelines, it cannot be said that aggrieved person would mean only the empanelled candidates. The said submission of the petitioner is not well founded. Patna High Court CWJC No.15551 of 2011 (9) dt.30-07-2013 5 The submission of the petitioner that the complaint against selection/empanelment in terms of Brochure/Guideline has to be filed only by the aggrieved party first needs to be considered. Clause 17.2 of the Brochure provides validity of merit panel. It reads thus:- this period, “The merit panel will be valid for a period of one year from the date of commissioning of the If within the dealership. dealership offer to the first empanelled candidate is to be withdrawn for any reason whatsoever or the dealership is terminated on account of wrong statement made in the application or any other reason like proven ineligibility (due to complaint etc.) of the dealer or proven malpractice, IOC will have the option of awarding dealership to the next candidate in the merit panel if he/she meets the eligibility criteria and after necessary Field verification.” Clause 18 thereof provides a Grievance Redressal System which reads in its relevant portion as under: “18(A) An aggrieved person may send his/her complaint to IOC at the address of the customer service cell displayed at the nearest retail outlet of IOC. Complaints can also be lodged on the website of IOC. Complaints against dealer selection received after 30 days from the date of declaration of the result of the interview will not be entertained under any circumstances. (i) Anonymous/pseudonymous complaints will not be investigated and will be filed without taking any action on the same. (ii) On receipt of a complaint a letter will be sent by IOC to the complainant through Registered Post, asking him to submit details of allegation with a view to Patna High Court CWJC No.15551 of 2011 (9) dt.30-07-2013 6 prima facie substantiate the allegations along with supporting documents, if any, within 30 days. Response of the complainant will be examined by IOC and if it is found that the complaint does not have specific and verifiable allegations, the same will be filed. The complainant will be clearly advised that the complaint will be examined by IOC and if it is established that the complaint does not have any substance, the same will be liable for legal action.” (B) xxxxxxxxxx” On a conspectus of the aforesaid two provisions, it appears that anonymous and pseudonymous complaints are only required not to be acted upon. Any wrong statement made in the application or another proven ineligibility (due to complaint etc.) can be entertained by the respondents. A narrow construction to words “aggrieved person”, as suggested by the petitioner, is not borne out. The said submission of the petitioner is, therefore, not sustainable in law. It appears from the notice inviting tender (Annexure-2) that the respondents required minimum area of land in the shape of 45 mtr frontage and 45 mtr depth. Length and width gives the size of the land. The total area of the aforesaid dimension comes to 2025 sqr. mtr. The petitioner in the application form disclosed to have possessed 2300 mtrs of land on the said location. The lease document filed in support thereof was only in respect of only 1943.2 sqr. mtrs of land. The declaration made by the petitioner is Patna High Court CWJC No.15551 of 2011 (9) dt.30-07-2013 7 to the effect that any wrong information and/or suppression of facts would disqualify the applicant from being considered for the Dealership. In view of the aforesaid facts, the respondents cannot be held to have acted arbitrarily in rejecting the candidature of the petitioner for the reasons set out in Annexure-1. Mr. Agrawal has placed reliance on a judgment of the Apex Court in the case of K. Vinod Kumar versus S. Palanisamy 2003 (4) P.L.J.R. (SC) 175 for the proposition that in the given facts providing a land of specified dimension should not be treated to be mandatory. The purpose of furnishing particulars of land in the application form is to enable a determination as to whether specified place would accommodate the Godown facility and distributorship arrangement from a commercial point of view. The applicant can provide the land subsequent to the filing of application. The aforesaid observation, in my view, was made by the Hon’ble Apex Court in a different and distinct factual background. The applicant had failed to furnish the particulars of the land to be given for the Dealership. The Writ Court allowed the challenge made to such selection of the candidate on the ground that there was no transparency in awarding marks. The intra Court Appeal filed by the selected candidate was dismissed. The Hon’ble Apex Court on close scrutiny found that the Patna High Court CWJC No.15551 of 2011 (9) dt.30-07-2013 8 Selection Board had acted in a bona fide manner and there was no infirmity in the administrative decision of the Dealer Selection Board in allocating marks. In the case at hand, the petitioner made a wrong declaration about holding of the land of the required dimension at the advertised location. On a complaint filed in this regard, the same was verified and after due measurement, it was found that petitioner did not hold land in the required dimension inasmuch as the total area thereof was less than the minimum area required as per the notice inviting tender. The declaration given by the petitioner in the application form was, therefore, incorrect/false. The petitioner has admitted in his pleadings that he did not hold 2300 sqr mtr of land at the advertised location which was spelt out in the application filed by him. The respondents have relied on a Division Bench
Decision
dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Pankaj/- (Kishore Kumar Mandal, J)