High Court · 2009

1. Heard Mr. A. D. Choudhury, learned counsel for the writ appellant (writ petitioner), Mr. M. K. Choudhury, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the India n Oil Corporation Ltd., Sri B. Goswami, learned counsel appearing for the respon dent No.4 and Sri S. K. Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 5.

2. The challenge in the writ appeal is against an order dated 12.8.2008 pas sed by the learned Single Judge in WP(C) No.5617 of 2006. By the aforesaid order the learned Single Judge, on the grounds and reasons assigned, has refused to i nterfere with the selection of the respondent No.4 for grant of a licence to run and operate a Kishan Seva Kendra at Khairabari in Barpeta District.

3. the present adjudication may be conveniently set out at this stage. The brief facts that will be required to be noticed for the purposes of A notice for selection of candidates for running the Kishan Seva Kendra in question was issued by the respondent Indian Oil Corporation on 6.8.2006. The notice stipulated 5.9.2006 to be the last date for submission of applications. Clause 10(c) of the notice stipulated that once an application is submitted no c orrection/change therein will be allowed. Under clause 10(d) of the notice no ad ditional documents could be accepted by the respondent Corporation after the las t date fixed for submission of application. Clause 10(h) provided that if wrong/ false information is furnished by an applicant his application was liable to be cancelled. It must also be noticed at this stage that in terms of the aforesaid notice dated 6.8.2006 the Kendra was to be established by the successful candida te in his own or leased land.

4. In the selections held the Respondent No.4 was placed at serial No.1, th e Respondent No.5 at serial No.2 and the appellant-writ petitioner at serial No. 3. Contending that the land offered by the Respondent No.4 consisted of a parcel of land measuring, roughly, one bigha, which did not belong to the said respond ent the writ petition out of which this appeal has arisen was filed. The learned Single Judge took note of the facts pleaded by the parties and came to the conc lusion that the aforesaid one bigha of land, which was contiguous to the PWD roa d was purchased by the Respondent No.4 by an unregistered sale deed as the same was covered by an annual patta issued in favour of the vendor of the Respondent No.4. In this regard, the learned Single Judge took note of the fact that in the State of Assam sale and purchase of annual patta lands and possession of such l ands on the said basis is a regular feature. The learned Single Judge also took note of the fact that after the selection was over the Respondent No.4 had praye d for mutation of his name in respect of the aforesaid one bigha of land which, however, was refused and the land was converted by the Revenue authority as Gove rnment land. On the said facts the learned Single Judge took the view that it ca nnot be said that the land offered by the Respondent No.4 in his application was not his own or leased land. It was also noticed by the learned Single Judge tha t the letter of intent to be issued to the Respondent No.4 on the basis of the s election made was contingent on a no objection being granted by the Government w ith regard to the use of the Government land contiguous to the PWD road as a pat h way and further that the Respondent No.5 was the next selected person in order of preference and not the appellant-writ petitioner. Accordingly, the learned S ingle Judge took the view that it would be appropriate to refuse interfere with the process undertaken by the respondent Corporation.

5. A perusal of the relevant clauses of the notice dated 6.8.2006 would ind icate that the Kishan Seva Kendra is to be established by the selected candidate in his own or leased land. The land offered by the Respondent No.4 except for t he one bigha of land was his own land. The said one bigha of land was purchased by the Respondent No.4 on the basis of an unregistered deed as the same was annu al patta land. Having regard to the prevailing practice in the State of Assam wi th regard to sale and purchase of annual patta lands it, therefore, cannot be un derstood that the aforesaid one bigha of land purchased by the Respondent No.4 w as not his own land within the meaning of the said expression appearing in the r elevant clause of the notice dated 6.8.2006.

6. An argument has been made on behalf of the appellant that the grant of l etter of intent to the Respondent No.4, being contingent on the NOC to be issued by the authority for use of the aforesaid one bigha of land which was subseque ntly converted as Government land, amounts to acceptance of additional documents on behalf of the Respondent No.4. Therefore, the process undertaken by the resp ondent Corporation is contrary to clause 10(d) of the notice dated 6.8.2006. 7. Clause 10(d) of the notice dated 6.8.2006 prohibits submission of additi onal documents by an applicant and consideration of such documents by the respon dent Corporation for the purpose of selection. In the present case the selection is over but the final decision with regard to grant of licence has been made co ntingent on a no objection certificate being granted by the competent authority of the State. In our considered view, the aforesaid facts will not attract claus e 10(d) of the notice dated 6.8.2006. That apart, what follows from the aforesai d facts is that the question regarding grant of licence to the Respondent No.4 i s yet to be finalized and such finalisation, naturally, will be once the NOC is granted and the respondent Corporation takes an appropriate decision on the basi s of such NOC at the relevant stage and time.

8. We have also noticed that the name of the writ appellant stands at seria l No.3 of the candidates selected in order of preference. Though a statement has been made by the learned counsel representing the respondent No.5 that the said respondent would not be interested to pursue his claim for licence, we do not f ind any affidavit of the respondent No.5 to the aforesaid effect in the record o f the case. We, therefore, do not consider it prudent to record any finding with regard to the willingness or unwillingness of the said Respondent No.5 to run a nd operate the Kishan Seva Kendra in the event of an offer being made to him.

9. For the aforesaid reasons, we do not find any merit in this writ appeal. The writ appeal is consequently dismissed, however, in the facts and circumstan ces of the case we leave the parties to bear their own costs.