High Court
Legal Reasoning
*1* wp12867o24IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABADWRIT PETITION NO.12867 OF 2024Prachi Rohit Dhumal,Age : 24 years, Occu : Business,R/o At. Post. Mahalgaon, Tq.Vaijapur,Dist. Chh. Sambhajinagar....PETITIONER-VERSUS-Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.,Through itsDivisional Manager,Divisional Office, Plot No.99,Indian Oil Bhawan, Jyoti Nagar,Aurangabad-431005....RESPONDENT…Shri Mahesh S. Deshmukh, Advocate for the petitioner.Shri Anand P. Bhandari, AGP for the respondent.... CORAM : MANGESH S. PATIL & PRAFULLA S. KHUBALKAR, JJ.Reserved on : 03rd December, 2024Pronounced on : 14th December, 2024JUDGMENT ( Per Prafulla S. Khubalkar, J. ) :- Heard. 2.Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finallyby consent of parties.3.The petitioner has raised challenge to the letter/ *2* wp12867o24order dated 24.10.2024 issued by the sole respondent cancellingher candidature for award of Retail Outlet (R.O.) Dealership.4.The factual matrix leading to the instant petition isas follows:-(a)The respondent/ Indian Oil Corporation floated anadvertisement dated 28.06.2023 calling applications forallotment of Retail Outlet Dealership at various locationsincluding at ‘4 KM from Baghur Phata towards Vaijapur onGangapur-Vaijapur Road (SH), District ChhatrapatiSambhajinagar’.(b)The last date for submission of application was27.09.2023. Detailed procedure for making an application andrelevant terms and conditions for allotment were mentioned inthe advertisement and Brochure.(c)In response to the advertisement, the petitionersubmitted application on 23.08.2023 from Group-1.(d)The location draw was held on 26.12.2023 and theintimation about selection and submission of documents was sentto the petitioner on 27.12.2023. This intimation mentioned that it *3* wp12867o24was only a preliminary intimation for the petitioner’s provisionalselection for R.O. Dealership and the award of dealership wassubject to compliance of further terms and conditions asrequired.(e)The petitioner submitted the documents in supportof her application including a registered Lease Deed dated21.08.2023 executed in her favour by one Bhagwan ChangdeoNighut. This Lease Deed mentioned the period of lease ascommencing from 01.01.2024 for a period of 30 years.(f)Subsequently, the petitioner also submitted aCorrection Deed dated 06.02.2024 to the above Lease Deed bywhich, correction was made with respect to the boundaries of theplot.(g) The petitioner submitted another Correction Deeddated 11.03.2024 which contained the clause of correction withrespect to the date of commencement of the period of lease. ThisCorrection Deed mentioned that the lease shall commence fromthe date of execution i.e. 21.08.2023 instead of 01.01.2024.(h)Thereafter, the respondent issued letter dated *4* wp12867o2424.10.2024 informing the petitioner that her candidature for R.O.allotment stood cancelled since she had failed to establish herpossessory rights over the land on the date of application.(i)The petitioner has raised challenge to this letter/order cancelling her candidature for R.O. allotment.5.The petitioner challenges the decision of therespondent rejecting her candidature on several groundsincluding that she had fulfilled eligibility criteria in view of thedocument of lease which was for a period of 30 years as againstthe requirement of 19 years and 11 months. She also avers thatalthough the date of commencement of lease was from01.01.2024 as per initial Lease Deed, since the field verificationwas carried out after 19.02.2024, it ought to have beenconsidered that she was eligible as per the requirements. She alsoavers that the respondent did not grant her opportunity to meetout the shortcomings.6.The respondent IOC filed affidavit in reply dated26.11.2024 thereby, justifying the decision of cancellation of the
Legal Reasoning
*5* wp12867o24petitioner’s candidature, pointing out that she was not holdingrequisite possessory rights in respect of the property as on thedate of the application.7.In response to the reply of the respondent, thepetitioner filed rejoinder affidavit dated 02.12.2024 reiteratingher stand that she was eligible in all respects.8.Advocate Mahesh Deshmukh, the learned counselfor the petitioner, strenuously argued that the impugned letter/order cancelling the petitioner’s candidature is illegal since therespondent had failed to consider that the petitioner had requisiteregistered Lease Deed for a period of 30 years. He also invitedour attention to various terms and conditions of Brochure tobuttress his contention that in view of the documents submittedby the petitioner, she was eligible in all respects. As against this,Shri Anand Bhandari, the learned advocate for the respondent,also invited our attention to various clauses and terms andconditions of the Brochure and argued that the petitioner was notholding requisite possessory rights in respect of the land ‘on thedate of application’ and, therefore, justified the decision of therespondent. *6* wp12867o249.Perused the record and considered the rivalcontentions of parties. The documents filed on record are notdisputed. A quick reference to relevant clauses of the Brochure ofselection of dealers is necessary. Relevant portion of the clauserelated to eligibility criteria as stated in clause 4(vi) isreproduced below:-“4.ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR INDIVIDUALAPPLICANTS- PROPRIETORSHIP /PARTNERSHIP.……….(vi)Land (Applicable to all categories):…….Group-1: Applicants having suitable piece ofland in the advertised location/ area either byway of ownership/ long term lease for a periodof minimum 19 years 11 months or asadvertised by the OMC.……The other conditions with respect to offering ofland are as under:-(a)The land should be available with the applicantas on the date of application and should haveminimum lease of 19 years and 11 months (asadvertised by respective oil company) from thedate or after the date of advertisement but notlater than the date of application. If the offeredland is on long term lease and there aremultiple owners, then lease deed should beexecuted by all co-owners of the offered plot incase lease deed is not executed by all co-owners; such lease deed shall be treated asinvalid. *7* wp12867o24…….”10.Further clause 4(vi)(o)(iii) of the Brochure providedthat it should be the responsibility of the applicant to ensure that‘as on the date of application’, the land owner is in possession ofthe offered land from the beginning/ edge of the Right of Wayline.11.The terms and conditions of Brochure show thatthere was a clear requirement of ownership/ long term lease withrespect to the land ‘as on the date of application’. Clause 23 ofthe Brochure mentioning ‘List of Non Rectifiable Deficiencies inApplications’ contained a clause in sub clause (q), whichprovided that in case the offered land was not at the advertisedlocation/ stretch and/or was not meeting the dealer selectionguidelines/ statutory norms, etc., the application would not beconsidered for further selection process.12.The terms of Brochure as referred to above revealthat there was a clear requirement to have ownership/ leaseholdrights of the land ‘on the date of application’. Further, the list ofnon rectifiable deficiencies specifically included sub-clause (q) *8* wp12867o24in Clause 23 about the category of land not meeting the dealerselection guidelines. Despite there being the corrected LeaseDeed dated 11.03.2024 mentioning the period of commencementof lease from 21.08.2023, fact remains that on the date ofapplication i.e. on 23.08.2023, the petitioner was not having theregistered document of lease establishing possessory rights inrespect of the land. The attempt on her part to demonstrate that inview of the Deeds of Correction of Lease Deed she fulfilled alleligibility criteria, cannot be accepted, since the fulfillment ofcriteria has to be reckoned with respect to the date of application.13.To buttress its submissions, the respondent hasrelied upon the judgments in (a) Bharat PetroleumCorporation Ltd. vs. Swapnil Singh, 2015 AIR Online SC270, (b) Anapurna Jaiswal vs. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.and others, 2021 SCC Online SC 852 and (c) Indian OilCorporation and others vs. Soma Saha and another, MATNo.304/2019 decided on 28.09.2022 (Calcutta High Court), forhighlighting the position of law that on failure to meet therequisite criteria on the date of application, a candidate cannot besaid to be eligible and his candidature cannot be considered in
Decision
*9* wp12867o24view of the terms and conditions of the Brochure. In this context,the observations of the Supreme Court of India in SwapnilSingh (supra) are reproduced below:-“…. The admitted position (which is alsoclear from the counter affidavit filed by therespondent in this Court) is that on 13th September,2011 when the application for allotment was made,the respondent was neither the owner of any landnor had any registered sale deed/ lease deed in hername. In fact, the lease deed came into existenceonly on 20th December, 2012 and that was registeredon 21st December, 2012. Clearly on the date of theapplication, the respondent was not eligible in termsof the brochure and the application form.”14. On careful consideration of rival submissions, weare of the view that the impugned decision is in accordance withthe specific terms and conditions of the Brochure. Interferenceby this Court in exercise of powers under Article 226 of theConstitution of India is not warranted. Hence, the Writ Petitiondeserves to be dismissed.15.The Writ Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.16.Rule is discharged. kps ( PRAFULLA S. KHUBALKAR, J.) ( MANGESH S. PATIL, J.)