High Court · 2025
Legal Reasoning
933.WP-12635-2024.odtIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABADWrit Petition No. 12635 Of 2024Rubina Sultana Nooruddin M. Younus ChaudhariAge : 47 years, Occupation-Business,R/o. Nalsab Galli, At Post : Paranda,Gut No.33, Anand Vihar, Near Wood Ridge,Tq. Paranda, Osmanabad. .. Petitioner Versus1.The Union of IndiaThrough its Secretary,Urban Development Department,Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.2.Territorial Manager (Retail),Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. (BPCL),BPCL Office, At Post, Akolkner,Tq. and Dist. Ahmednagar – 414005. .. Respondents****** Mr. Himmatsinh D. Deshmukh, Advocate for the Petitioner.* Mr. Anand P. Bhandari, Advocate for Respondent No.2.***** CORAM : S.G. MEHARE AND SHAILESH P. BRAHME, JJ.. DATE : 14th FEBRUARY 2025 PER COURT :.Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard both sidesfinally.2.The Petitioner has invoked jurisdiction of this Court underArticle 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking direction to[1]
Legal Reasoning
933.WP-12635-2024.odtconsider her candidature in Group-I for Regular and Rural RetailOutlet Dealership or to reconsider her clarification for theobjections raised against her candidature.3.Petitioner participated in selection process commenced byadvertisement published on 28.06.2023 for selection of Dealersfor Regular and Rural Retail Outlet (for short ‘dealership’). Sheapplied for the same from Group-I on 17.10.2023 banking onunregistered lease deed of a land at Autewadi, Taluka Shrigonda,District Ahilyanagar executed on 26.09.2023. She paid deficitstamp duty by soliciting orders of impounding on 09.01.2024. TheRespondents notified shortfall in her application videcommunication dated 23.02.2024. She removed those objectionsand clarified the Respondents on 20.02.2024. 4.The Respondents informed the Petitioner videcommunication dated 15.07.2024 that her candidature was foundto be non-responsive to the eligibility condition and she wasplaced in Group-III. Again she made correspondence with theRespondents. Lastly she received a letter dated 07.08.2024 bywhich the Respondents classified her in Group-III as the lease deedwas unregistered. Being aggrieved the Petitioner has approachedHigh Court. 5.Mr. H.D. Deshmukh, Advocate for the Petitioner, submitsthat the lease deed in question was impounded vide order dated09.01.2024 relating it back to 26.09.2023, date of execution oflease deed which is sufficient compliance of the eligibilitycondition of Group-I. He would further submit that all the defects[2] 933.WP-12635-2024.odtwere removed by the Petitioner and therefore her eliminationfrom Group-I is arbitrary and highhanded. He would submit thather candidature should not have been categorized to Group-III.She is atleast eligible for consideration from Group-II. The actionof the Respondents is highhanded, perverse and arbitrary.6.Per contra, Mr. Anand Bhandari Advocate for RespondentNo.2 would support the impugned action on the basis of affidavit-in-reply placed on record. He would submit that as per eligibilitycriteria to claim the dealership from Group-I, Petitioner shouldhave armed with registered lease deed at the time of submission ofher application. Her lease deed was neither registered, nor dulystamped. He would point out various provisions of the Brochuregoverning the selection process to buttress the submission that itis impermissible to shift a candidate to Group-II from Group-I. Hewould further submit that Petitioner was apprised of the shortfalland despite extending opportunity, she failed to remove thedeficiencies. He would further submit that the lease deed needs tobe in a prescribed format which is lacking. He would advert ourattention to the undertaking given by the candidate as per ClauseNo.15 of the Brochure. 7.He has placed reliance on the judgments in the matters ofBharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. and Ors. Vs. Swapnil Singh,Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No.6928-6929/2015 and Jayants/o Shahuraj Sonawane Vs. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. andAnother, Writ Petition No.2618/2020.8.We have considered rival submissions of the parties.[3] 933.WP-12635-2024.odtAdmittedly, Petitioner had applied from Group-I on 17.10.2023. Onthe same date, lease deed was executed which was unregistered.Impounding of the lease deed was at later point of time. Bycommunication dated 15.07.2024, she was apprised of theobjection pertaining to the lease deed and indication to classify herinto Group-III. Only reason for classifying the candidature fromGroup-I to Group-III is non-registration of lease deed. 9.Our attention is invited to Clause 4 (vi) of eligibility criteria.Following is the relevant context :4. Eligibility Criteria for Individual Applicants - Proprietorship/Partnership :(vi) Land (Applicable to all categories):The applicants would be classified into three groups as mentioned below basedon the land offered or land not offered by them in the application form: -Group-1: Applicants having suitable piece of land in the advertisedlocation/area either by way of ownership/long term lease for a period ofminimum 19 years 11 months or as advertised by the OMC.Group-2: Applicants having Firm Offer for a suitable piece of land forpurchase or long-term lease for a period of minimum 19 years 11 months oras advertised by the OMC.Group-3: Applicants who have not offered land in the application. Onlyapplicable for locations advertised under SC/ST category.Applications under Group - 3 would be processed/advised to offer land(Annexure - D) only in case no eligible applicant is found or no applicant getselected under Group - 1 & Group - 2.In case land offered by all the applicants under Group 1 & Group - 2 is foundnot suitable/not meeting requirements, then these applicant/s under Group -1 &Group - 2 along with applicants under Group 3 (who did not offer land alongwith application) would be advised by the OMCs to provide suitable land in theadvertised location /stretch, within a period of 90 days from the date ofissuance of intimation letter to them through SMS/e-mail. In case the applicantfails to provide suitable land within the prescribed period, or the land providedis found not meeting the laid down criteria, the application would be rejected.10.Note 1 appended to eligibility criteria stipulated by Clause 4[4] 933.WP-12635-2024.odtis as follows :“Note 1 : a. “Own” means having ownership by way of Registered Sale deed,Registered Gift deed, etc. or title of the property or registered long lease (asper individual OMC norms) in the name of applicant/family member/s asdefined in 4 (vi) and 4 (vi) (h) above.” 11.Admittedly when the Petitioner submitted application, shewas not armed with registered lease deed. It is not her case thatlease deed was subsequently registered. It was only impoundedvide order dated 09.01.2024. It is trite law that candidate of anyselection process must hold eligibility on the date of his/herapplication. That means, when she applied from Group-I, she wasnot eligible. Impounding of document cannot dispense with therequirement of registration. Despite apprising her, she failed tocomply with the deficiencies which resulted in her eliminationfrom Group-I and classification to Group-III.12.Learned Counsel Mr. Anand Bhandari has referred tojudgment of the Supreme Court in the matter of Bharat PetroleumCorporation Ltd. (supra). In that case, the Respondent wasaspiring for LPG distribution-ship who had submitted applicationon 13.09.2011. During verification, it was found that leaseagreement was registered on 21.12.2012. The allotment ofdistribution-ship was canceled. Writ Petition was filed beforeSingle Judge which also came to be dismissed. Being aggrieved,appeal was preferred before Division Bench which was allowed.Therefore Petroleum Corporation was before the Supreme Courtas appellant. In that case also as per the terms of Brochure,requirement was of registered lease deed. In that context,following observations are made :[5] 933.WP-12635-2024.odt“We have gone through the records of the case along with the assistanceof learned counsel for the parties and we find that the brochure readwith the application form is absolutely clear in the sense that theapplicant must be the owner of the specified area of land or must have aregistered lease deed of the specified area of land on the date ofapplication. The admitted position (which is also clear from the counteraffidavit filed by the respondent in this Court) is that on 13th September,2011 when the application for allotment was made, the respondent wasneither the owner of any land nor had any registered sale deed/leasedeed in her name. In fact, the lease deed came into existence only on20th December, 2012 and that was registered on 21st December, 2012.Clearly, on the date of the application, the respondent was not eligible interms of the brochure and the application form.”.Ultimately appeal of the Petroleum Corporation was allowed.We find that ratio laid down by the Supreme Court is squarelyapplicable to the case in hand considering the conditions ofeligibility and the fact that when Petitioner submitted application,she was not armed with registered lease deed. 13.Further reliance is placed on the judgment of Jayant s/oShahuraj Sonawane (supra). In that matter, the Petitioner washeld to be ineligible for Retail Outlet Dealership. Similar eligibilityconditions existed in that selection process. A notarizedagreement was submitted with the dealership application,whereas lease deed was registered at later point of time. Referringto the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of DistrictCollector and Chairman, Vizianagaram Social Welfare ResidentialSchool Society Vs. M. Tripura Sundari Devi, (1990) 3 SCC 655, itwas held that if the appointment is made in this regard of thequalification in the advertisement then it would amount to fraudon public to appoint a person with inferior qualification. Followingare further relevant extract :“10. Although the aforesaid decision was rendered concerning an appointment[6] 933.WP-12635-2024.odtfollowing public advertisement, there is no reason as to why the principle maynot be applicable in the present case which also concerns selection and awardof distributorship following public advertisement. It cannot be overemphasizedthat no selection and consequent appointment or award of dealership pursuantto a public advertisement can be made in disregard of the qualificationsmentioned in the advertisement; if the qualifications are disregarded, it wouldamount to arbitrariness attracting scrutiny of the Court on the anvil of Article14 of the Constitution.”14.Applying the above ratio, we are of the considered view thatthe candidature of the Petitioner is rightly rejected from Group-I.Though Mr. Bhandari pointed out further parts of the abovejudgment, but that would not apply as in that case, the lease deedwas subsequently registered and Section 47 was tried to beinvoked. 15.The shifting of the Petitioner from Group-I to Group-III isalso vehemently challenged. It is not permissible to shiftapplicants who are found ineligible from Group-I to Group-II. Thefollowing eligibility clause is relevant :“n) Each applicant will have to declare, in the application form, thecategory under which offered land falls. However, it is advised that priorto declaring the category of the offered land in the application, eachapplicant in their own interest, should get the same verified through anadvocate.The Group under which the applicant's land falls, would be consideredbased on the declaration given in the application. However, this aspectwill be verified by the OMC and in case it is found that the offered landis not in the group as declared by the applicant, the land will not beconsidered and the applicant will be made ineligible. However, in case ofGroup-2 applicants, if the offered land is found to be in Group-1 by theOMC, the candidature of such applicants will be considered for selectionunder Group - 2.For locations advertised under SC/ST category, if it is found that theoffered land is not in the group as declared by the applicant, the landwill not be considered and the applicant will be moved to Group-3.However, if the applicant was originally in Group -3 or have already been[7] 933.WP-12635-2024.odtmoved to Group 3 earlier, the candidate will be made ineligible. In caseof Group-2 applicants, if the offered land is found to be in Group -1 bythe OMC, the candidature of such applicants will be considered forselection under Group - 2.”16.Our attention is adverted to undertaking to be given by theapplicant as per Clause 15 which is as follows : “I am aware that eligibility for Retail Outlet Dealership will be decidedbased on the information given in the application above. On verificationby the Oil Company if it is found that the information given by me isincorrect/ false/ misrepresented, then my candidature will stand cancelledand I will be declared ineligible for the Retail Outlet Dealership.”17.We find substance in the submission of Counsel Mr. Bhandarithat when the Petitioner was not armed with registered leasedeed, she should not have applied from Group-I. Rather she shouldhave opted Group-II. However her information proved to beincorrect, incurring disqualification from Group-I. The stand takenby the Respondent No.2 by way of communication dated15.07.2024 and 07.08.2024 is in consonance with terms ofconditions of eligibility contained in Brochure. We do not find anyarbitrariness or procedural lapses. We find no substance in thepetition. Writ Petition is dismissed. Rule stands discharged. [ SHAILESH P. BRAHME ] [ S.G. MEHARE ] JUDGE JUDGEnajeeb..[8]