The High Court
Case Details
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: ROJALIN NAYAK Designation: JUNIOR STENOGRAPHER Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 18-Jul-2024 20:13:24 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C). NO.21814 OF 2016 (An application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India) ***** Sandeepta Samantaray …. Petitioner Indian Oil Corporation (MD), Bhubaneswar -versus- Advocate for the Parties : …. Opp. Parties For Petitioner : Mr. Debasis Nayak, Advocate For Opposite Parties : Mr. Sanjibani Mishra, Advocate (For IOCL) CORAM: JUSTICE K.R. MOHAPATRA -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Heard and disposed of on 12.07.2024 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- J U D G M E N T 1. 2. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode. Petitioner in this writ petition seeks to assail Letter dated 26th March, 2015 (Annexure-2) issued by the Indian Oil Corporation (for brevity hereinafter referred to as ‘IOCL’) rejecting the candidature of the Petitioner for LPG Distributorship at location “Cuttack-Ranihat”, District Cuttack, Odisha under ‘O’ category. Petitioner also assails letter dated 17th September, 2016 (Annexure-6) rejecting her grievance petition. Petitioner further seeks for a W.P.(C) NO.21814 OF 2016 Page 1 of 10
Legal Reasoning
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: ROJALIN NAYAK Designation: JUNIOR STENOGRAPHER Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 18-Jul-2024 20:13:24 direction to award the LPG Distributorship in her favour at the aforesaid location. 3.
Legal Reasoning
Mr. Nayak, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that pursuant to the Advertisement made for LPG Distributorship at the aforesaid location, Petitioner along with other candidates submitted their candidatures by filling up the Form prescribed. They also submitted requisite documents and information in the application. On scrutiny of the applications submitted, only the Petitioner was found eligible for award of the aforesaid LPG Distributorship. On verification of the application along with documents submitted, the Petitioner was selected for award of the aforesaid LPG Distributorship and was communicated vide Letter dated 6th October, 2014 (Annexure-1). Petitioner was also asked to deposit a sum of Rs.50,000/- for Field Verification of Credentials (for brevity hereinafter referred to as ‘FVC’) for appointment of the LPG Distributor. But, most unfortunately, when the Petitioner was making preparation for opening the LPG Distributorship, she was communicated with Letter dated 26th March, 2015(Annexure-2) rejecting her candidature on the ground that the fixed deposit No. F510285 of Rs.5.00 lakhs was in the name of Sri Sriharsha Dalai and Sri Ramachandra Dalai jointly out of whom, though Sri Sriharsha Dalai is the husband of the Petitioner, but, Ramachadra Dalai is her father-in-law, who is not a member of the Family Unit. 3.1 It is submitted that the candidature of the Petitioner could not have been rejected on the aforesaid flimsy ground. When on scrutiny of the application of the Petitioner along with documents submitted, IOCL found those to be in order and selected her for W.P.(C) NO.21814 OF 2016 Page 2 of 10 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: ROJALIN NAYAK Designation: JUNIOR STENOGRAPHER Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 18-Jul-2024 20:13:24 award of the Distributorship, they are estopped to reject her candidature on the aforesaid ground. Since the Petitioner has been selected for award of the LPG Distributorship, it is deemed that deficiency, if any, in the application along with documents filed, more particularly the in the fixed deposit receipt as referred to above, has been waived. 3.2 He further submits that if there was any defect in the application, the Petitioner should have been communicated with the discrepancies/deficiencies in view of Clause-8.5 of the Brochure for selection of LPG Distributorship (for brevity ‘the Brochure’), which reads as under: “8.5. Procedure For Receipt of Application Application would be received in sealed envelope only. After application is received, serial number would be put on the envelope and also recorded in a Register Acknowledgement for applications received will be sent to the applicants. In case deficiencies are found in the application, a letter would be sent to the applicant to rectify the deficiencies within a specified period of time.” 4. Thus, the Petitioner should have been intimated about the deficiencies, if any, in her application to rectify the same. But, no communication whatsoever was issued to the Petitioner at any point of time stating the deficiencies, if any, in her application save and except the impugned order under Annexure-2 rejecting her candidature. Learned counsel for the Petitioner also drew attention of this Court to Clause-10(c) of the Brochure, which is an under: “c. If in the FVC it is found that information given in the application is at variance with the original documents and that information affects the eligibility of the candidate, then a letter would be sent by Registered Post AD/Speed Post pointing out the discrepancy. Candidature of selected candidate in such a W.P.(C) NO.21814 OF 2016 Page 3 of 10 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: ROJALIN NAYAK Designation: JUNIOR STENOGRAPHER Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 18-Jul-2024 20:13:24 case will be cancelled and 10% of applicable security deposit remitted by the selected candidate before FVC will be forfeited if false/incorrect/misrepresented information has been given in the application.” 5. He, accordingly, submitted that if the information given in the application is at variance of the original documents submitted by the candidate, then a letter would have been sent to her by registered post/speed post pointing out the discrepancies. No such letter was also issued to the Petitioner before issuance of Annexure-2. He, therefore, submits that the impugned order is per se illegal and is liable to be set aside. 6. It is his submission that although the fixed deposit receipt in question was jointly held by Sri Sriharsha Dalai and Ramachandra Dalai, but Sri Sriharsha Dalai was the only holder of the fixed deposit and the name of her father-in-law has been inadvertently written therein. He also submitted that the Bank vide its letter dated 7th April, 2015 has clarified that the fixed deposit is favouring Sri Sriharsha Dalai only and TDS has been deducted against the PAN Number of Sri Sriharsha Dalai only. Thus, for all practical purposes, the said fixed deposit receipt was issued in the name of the spouse of the Petitioner, who is a member of the Family Unit. Had the Petitioner been given an opportunity, she would have been in a position to clarify the alleged discrepancy. Thus, the impugned letter under Annexure-2 is per se illegal being in violation of the procedure of the Brochure as well as natural justice. He, therefore, submits that the impugned letter should be set aside and the Petitioner should be issued with the Letter of Intent (LOI) to proceed with the opening of the LPG Distributorship at the aforesaid location. W.P.(C) NO.21814 OF 2016 Page 4 of 10 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: ROJALIN NAYAK Designation: JUNIOR STENOGRAPHER Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 18-Jul-2024 20:13:24 7. Ms. Mishra, learned counsel for IOCL vehemently opposes the submission of learned counsel for the Petitioner and submits that after receipt of the application of the candidates, IOCL verifies the application. If the application is duly filled in all respects, then the Company proceeds with the selection process. When there are more than one candidate, the selection is being made by drawl of lots. In the instant case, the Petitioner, being the single eligible candidate, no drawl of lot was made. As the application of the Petitioner was duly filled in, she was issued with a Letter under Annexure-1. The information given in the application is verified only at the time of FVC, which is clear from Clause-10(c) of the Brochure itself. It has also been stated in Annexure-1 that the Petitioner is required to deposit a sum of Rs.50,000/- for FVC. In the last paragraph of the said Letter under Annexure-1, it has been clarified that if in the FVC, the information given in your application is found to be false/incorrect/misrepresented affecting the eligibility of the candidate (Petitioner), the said amount of Rs.50,000/- paid by her before FVC will be forfeited along with cancellation of the candidature. Thus, the plea of estoppel, as raised by the Petitioner, does not apply in this case. After deposit of the sum of Rs.50,000/- by the Petitioner, the FVC was made. On verification, it was found that FD No.F510285 stood jointly in the name of Sri Sriharsha Dalai and Ramachandra Dalai. But, the Petitioner in her application at Clause-12 stated that the said receipt stood in the name of her spouse (husband only). Since the information given in the application was found to be incorrect, on scrutiny of the fixed deposit receipt, IOCL sought for a clarification from the concerned Bank, namely, Karur W.P.(C) NO.21814 OF 2016 Page 5 of 10 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: ROJALIN NAYAK Designation: JUNIOR STENOGRAPHER Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 18-Jul-2024 20:13:24 Vysya Bank. The Bank in response, vide its letter dated 9th March, 2015 (Annexure-E/1), clarified as under: “1. The TDR is jointly in the name of Mr. Sriharsha Dalai and Mr. Ramachandra Dalai. 2. The Amount of TDR as on 06.10.2013 is Rs 6,09,120 05 3. The Amount of TDR as on 07.10.2013 is Rs 6,09,120.06 4. Sri Harsha Dalai and Ramachandra Dalai are joint holders of the FD where Sriharsha Dalai is the first holder and Ramachandra Dalai is the second holder. 5. The TDR ON MATURITY can be encashed either by Sriharsha Dalai or by Ramachandra Dalai individually. However, the TDR BEFORE MATURITY can be encashed jointly by Sriharsha Dalal and Ramachandra Dalai, and not Individually.” 8. Admittedly, Sri Ramachandra Dalai is not a member of the Family Unit, as he is the father-in-law of the Petitioner. Family Unit has been described at Clause-6-1 (v) of the Brochure, relevant portion of which reads as under: “6.1. common Eligibility Criteria for all Categories applying as individual; v. ……………. Family Unit’ In case of married person/ applicant, shall consist of individual concerned, his/her Spouse and their unmarried son(s)/daughter(s). In case of unmarried person/ applicant, ’Family Unit’ shall consist of individual concerned, his/her parents and his/her unmarried brother(s) and unmarried sister(s). In case of divorcee, ’Family Unit’ shall consist of individual concerned, unmarried son(s)/unmarried daughter(s) whose custody is given to him/her. In case of widow/widower, ’Family Unit’ shall consist of individual concerned, unmarried son(s)/unmarried daughter(s).” 9. She further submits that IOCL could not have considered the candidature of the Petitioner ignoring the aforesaid TDR/Fixed Deposit receipt. If the said fixed deposit receipt is not taken into consideration, then the eligibility criteria at Clause 6.1(vi), which W.P.(C) NO.21814 OF 2016 Page 6 of 10 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: ROJALIN NAYAK Designation: JUNIOR STENOGRAPHER Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 18-Jul-2024 20:13:24 requires a minimum total amount of Rs.15.00 lakhs for urban markets as the closing balance on the last date for submission of the application in the name of the Petitioner, is not satisfied. Thus, the Petitioner was issued with the Letter under Annexure-2 cancelling the candidature and forfeiting the deposits of Rs.50,000/-. It is further submitted that after receipt of the application of the Petitioner pursuant to the Advertisement, it was found to be in order. Thus, no communication was made to her showing any deficiency. There was as such no deficiency in the application of the Petitioner. Thus, as per the selection procedure, Annexure-1 was issued selecting her for FVC. On FVC only, the discrepancy as above was pointed out and the Petitioner was accordingly communicated forthwith canceling her candidature. Thus, there is no deviation in the selection procedure, as alleged by the Petitioner. There is also no violation of principles of natural justice, as alleged. She, therefore, prays for dismissal of this writ petition. 10. 11. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Perused the materials on record along with relevant clauses of the Brochure. 12. Admittedly, the Petitioner was found to be single eligible candidate for appointment of LPG Distributorship at Ranihaat, Cuttack. Clause-8 of the Brochure deals with the receipt and scrutiny of the application. Upon receipt of the application, IOCL verified the application. As it was in order, letter of selection was issued for FVC vide letter dated 6th October, 2014 (Annexure-1) to the Petitioner for deposit of Rs.50,000/- for FVC. At the stage of FVC only, the Oil Company (IOCL) scrutinizes the veracity of the W.P.(C) NO.21814 OF 2016 Page 7 of 10 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: ROJALIN NAYAK Designation: JUNIOR STENOGRAPHER Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 18-Jul-2024 20:13:24 information given in the application vis-(cid:224)-vis the documents provided as would be clear from clause-10 (c) of the Brochure (supra). For that purpose, originals of the documents are required to be submitted by the selected candidates for FVC. At the time of FVC, if it was found that the information given in the application with regard to one of the Fixed Deposit Receipt/TDR to be false/incorrect/misrepresented, affecting the eligibility of the candidate. Thus, a letter under Annexure-2 was issued cancelling the candidature of the Petitioner. Thus, the submission of Mr. Nayak, learned counsel for the Petitioner that if there was any discrepancy in the application of the Petitioner, she should have been communicated with the same in view of Clause-8.5 of the Brochure, is not correct as at that stage IOCL had no occasion to test the veracity of the information submitted by the Petitioner. 13. On receipt of the application, it is only verified as to whether the application is in order or not, which is the scope and object of Clause-8.5 of the Brochure. If some information as required in the application form is not given, then a letter is required to be issued to the candidate to rectify the same as required under Clause- 8.5 of the Brochure. But, in the instant case, the application of the Petitioner was duly filled in and it was in order. So, IOCL was not required to issue any letter to the Petitioner stating any discrepancy. No occasion arises for verification of any documents at that stage, as it is only verified at the stage of FVC on deposit of Rs.50,000/-. As such, the information given by the Petitioner in her application in relation of the documents submitted was verified at the time of FVC, in which it was found that one of the fixed deposit receipts stood W.P.(C) NO.21814 OF 2016 Page 8 of 10 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: ROJALIN NAYAK Designation: JUNIOR STENOGRAPHER Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 18-Jul-2024 20:13:24 jointly in the name of the husband of the Petitioner as well as her father in law. Father-in-law is not a member of Family Unit as per Clausse-6-1(v) of the Brochure. Finding such discrepancy, a clarification was sought for from the Bank, which clarified vide Annexure-E/1 that the disputed TDR stood jointly in the name of Sri Sriharsha Dalai and Sri Ramachandra Dalai. It was also clarified that Sri Sriharsha Dalai and Sri Ramachandra Dalai are the joint holders of the fixed deposit where Sri Sriharsha Dalai was the first holder and Sri Ramachandra Dalai was the second holder of the Fixed Deposit. But, in the application Form, at Clause-12, it was stated by the Petitioner that the said receipt stood in the name of her husband, namely, (Sri Sriharsha Dalai). Thus, in view of Clause-10(c) of the Brochure, the candidature of the Petitioner was cancelled. 14. In view of the discussions made above, this Court finds that the principles of estoppel do not operate in the instant case, as no scrutiny of the application was made before the FVC. It is only after deposit of a sum of Rs.50,000/- for FVC as per the Brochure, the Oil Company (IOCL) verifies as to whether application is in order or not. Further, it appears that when the information given in the application of the Petitioner was found to be incorrect affecting eligibility of the candidate, the Petitioner was communicated under Annexure-2. Thus, there is no error in the selection procedure, as alleged by learned counsel for the Petitioner. 15. Further, the question of compliance of principles of natural justice at the stage of acceptance of application or its scrutiny was not required to be given to the Petitioner, as her application was in order. It is at the stage of FVC, the discrepancy/misrepresentation W.P.(C) NO.21814 OF 2016 Page 9 of 10 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: ROJALIN NAYAK Designation: JUNIOR STENOGRAPHER Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 18-Jul-2024 20:13:24 came to light and as per clause-10(c) of the Brochure, the same was communicated to the Petitioner vide Letter under Annexure-2 cancelling her candidature detailing the reasons therein. Thus, I find no infirmity in the Letter under Annxeure-2. Hence, this writ petition, being devoid of any merit, stands dismissed. 16. In the facts and circumstances of this case, there shall be no order as to costs. Urgent certified copy of this judgment be granted on proper application. High Court of Orissa, Cuttack The 12th Day of July, 2024/Rojalin (K.R. Mohapatra) Judge W.P.(C) NO.21814 OF 2016 Page 10 of 10