High Court

Legal Reasoning

wp7028.24-j-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABADWRIT PETITION NO. 7028 OF 2024Multajim Shameer Kureshi,Age 23 years, Occ. Nil,R/o. At Post Shendurwada,Tq. Gangapur, District Aurangabad ...Petitioner Versus 1.Indian Oil Corporation Limited,Indian Oil BhavanG-9, Ali Yavar Jung Marg, Bandra (East), Mumbai 400 0512.Indian Oil Corporation Limited Aurangabad Divisional Office,Through Dy. General Manager,Plot No.99, Indian Oil BhavanJyoti Nagar, Aurangabad ...Respondents …..Mr. Nikhil S. Tekale, advocate for the petitioner Mr. Anand P. Bhandari, advocate for the respondents…..ANDWRIT PETITION NO. 5212 OF 2024 Anandkumar s/o Raghunath GhodeshwarAge 53 years, Occ. Business,R/o. At post Kandari, Tq. Bhusawal,District Jalgaon ...Petitioner Versus 1.The Union of IndiaThrough its SecretaryMinistry of Petroleum & Natural GasShashri Bhavan, New Delhi 2.The Chairman, wp7028.24-j-2- Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.,New Delhi 3.The Head of Divisional OfficeIndian Oil Corporation Ltd.Aurangabad Divisional Office,Plot No.99, Jyoti Nagar,Aurangabad ...Respondents …..Mr. Sunil G. Magare, advocate for the petitioner Ms. Sudha Chintamani, advocate for respondent No.1 Mr. Anand P. Bhandari, advocate for the respondent Nos. 2 and 3….. CORAM:MANGESH S. PATIL AND PRAFULLA S. KHUBALKAR, JJ.DATE OF RESERVING THE JUDGMENT: 27.11.2024DATE OF PRONOUNCING THE JUDGMENT: 09.12.2024JUDGMENT (MANGESH S. PATIL, J.) :- Heard. 2.Rule in both the matters. It is made returnable forthwith.Learned advocates for the respective respondents waive service. Atthe joint request of both the sides, the matters are being decidedfinally at the stage of admission. 3.Though the petitioners are different, the contestingrespondent i.e. the Indian Oil Corporation Limited, being the sameand the petitioners’ applications for retail outlet dealership (RO) in wp7028.24-j-3- respect of different locations have been rejected on the same ground,‘PAN No. mismatch’, a common issue falls for consideration of thisCourt and in order to avoid repetition, both these matters have beenheard together and are being disposed of by this common judgmentand order. 4.The issue involved is, as to if the impugned rejections onthe ground of ‘PAN No. mismatch’, is a rectifiable or a non-rectifiabledeficiency. 5.The learned advocates for the petitioners in both thepetitions would submit that till the present process in which thepetitioners had applied, there was no such guideline regarding non-rectifiable deficiencies. For the first time, it was introduced in theform of clause no. 23 and in sub-clause (n) a ‘PAN No. mismatch’has been listed in the category of non-rectifiable deficiency in thebrochure of 2023. A mere shuffling of the letters while mentioningPAN numbers being a human error could not have been treated as anon-rectifiable mistake. An opportunity ought to have been extendedto rectify the error. They were not to gain anything by mentioningincorrect PAN number while applying for the retail outlet dealership.The stipulation is harsh and arbitrary. wp7028.24-j-4- 6.The learned advocates would refer to the followingdecisions:-i)Priya Kumari vs. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.; (2020) 215All IND CAS 669, ii)Hina v/s Union fo India and others; (2016) 6SCC 293,iii)Chairman and MD Central Bank of India Vs. CentralBank of India SC/ST Employees Welfare Associationand others; AIR 2016 SC 326. 7.Per contra, Mr. Bhandari, the learned advocate for therespondent - Indian Oil Corporation would submit that the brochure of2023, expressly provides a list of non-rectifiable deficiency and ‘PANNo. mismatch’ is one of those. Since, admittedly, the petitioners inboth the matters, having committed mistake, may be a human error,no deviation is permissible, rather not applying, guidelines would bearbitrary. No discretion vests with the Oil company. The conditionhas not been applied abruptly. The petitioners cannot question thelegality of decision of the respondents to reject their candidature.They were aware about the clause and having participated withoutdemur, they cannot even challenge vires of the clause. He wouldsubmit that the decisions which were rendered prior to the brochureof 2023, would not apply to the fact situation. There is noarbitrariness and not even mala fides have been attributed. Thepetitions be dismissed. wp7028.24-j-5- 8.We have considered the rival submissions and perused thepapers. 9.At the outset, it is necessary to emphasize the fact thatthere is no dispute as far as the facts are concerned. The petitionershad applied for retail outlet dealership pursuant to the advertisementissued by the respondent - Oil Company, which in turn, was bound bythe conditions contained in the brochure of 2023. Clause No.23 givesa list of non-rectifiable deficiencies and sub-clause (n) thereofcontains ‘PAN No. mismatch/ incorrect PAN No./ PAN No. does notbelong to the applicant’. 10.Though the petitioner in writ petition No. 7028 of 2024 haschallenged its vires, on the ground that it is arbitrary, unjustified andunsustainable, it is apparent that after having participated and appliedpursuant to the advertisement, without any demur, he cannot bepermitted to question the clause. It is like taking a chance. Havingfailed to obtain the dealership he is now questioning the vires of thestipulation. It is trite that the participants in the selection processcannot be permitted to question the terms and conditions in theselection once they have participated. This is clearly an afterthought.We therefore, cannot permit the petitioner from writ petition No. 7028of 2024, to question the vires of clause 23(n) of the brochure of 2023. wp7028.24-j-6- 11.Though it is a human error, indeed it is an error committedby the petitioners in mentioning the PAN number. Since it is a matterof competition and selection, allowing the candidates like thepetitioners, giving some lee-way, by relaxing a condition, would be tothe prejudice of the other participants in the process who haveapplied for the dealership. So long as the condition has been applieduniformly and when it is not a matter of arbitrariness in application ofthe condition, this Court, in exercise of the limited power under Article226 of the Constitution of India, cannot interfere in the matter ofselection process. No fault can be found with the impugned decision /communication, thereby rejecting the petitioners’ applications forawarding retail outlet dealership. 12.In none of the matters cited by the learned advocates forthe petitioners viz. Priya Kumari (supra), Hina (supra) andChairman and MD Central Bank of India (supra), the issue similarto one before us, was obtaining. There was no guideline similar toclause No. 23(n) in question and, therefore, none of these mattersare similar to the cases cited by the learned advocates for thepetitioners. Therefore, the petitioners are not entitled to seekreliance on those decisions even by way of analogy. When thebrochure of 2023 expressly stipulates and enlists non-rectifiabledeficiencies, the petitioners are not entitled to derive any benefit from wp7028.24-j-7- these decisions. 13.As against this, the learned single Judge of the High Courtof Punjab and Haryana, in the matter Gaurav Gupta vs. BharatPetroleum Corporation Limited and others; in CWP No. 6000 of2024 (decided on 07.05.2024), in similar set of facts, has rightlyrefused to grant any relief to the petitioner, who was similarly placedas that of the petitioners before us. 14.The upshot, the petitioners are not entitled to eitherquestion the vires of clause No. 23(n) of the brochure of 2023 andcannot question rejection of their applications. 15.There are no merits in both the writ petitions.16.The petitions are dismissed.17.Rule is discharged. (PRAFULLA S. KHUBALKAR, J.) (MANGESH S. PATIL , J.)rlj/