Ashok Kumar Khatik @APPELLANT@Hash Indian Oil Corporation Limited

 By way of this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner herein has approached this court for assailing the

communication dated 08.05.2017 (Annexure-8) whereby, the respondent Indian Oil Corporation, rejected the candidature of the petitioner for Indane

LPG Dealership at the location Mandal, District Bhilwara undertaken in furtherance of the advertisement dated 21.09.2013 in the ‘Open’

category.

Facts in brief are that the respondent IOCL issued the above mentioned advertisement dated 21.09.2013 inviting applications for appointment of LPG

distributors in the State of Rajasthan under various categories. The petitioner submitted his application in the Open category for location Mandal,

District Bhilwara in terms of the advertisement. The petitioner was informed vide letter dated 28.02.2017 that he had been selected in the draw. He

was asked to deposit a sum of Rs.25,000/- as per clause 11(h) of the advertisement for undertaking Field Verification of Credentials (FVC) pertaining

to the lands/locations offered by the petitioner in his application form. The petitioner claims that he had obtained the land for setting up the godown by

way of a lease from Sanjay Kumar who owns 1/4th share in Khasra No.159 of the village Balai Kheda. For the purpose of setting up the showroom,

the petitioner claims to have obtained a plot on lease from Smt. Shimla Devi of her land falling in village Guddha, Tehsil Mandal, District Bhilwara.

The petitioner deposited the requisite amount vide demand draft dated 03.03.2017. After FVC was carried out, the petitioner was intimated vide letter

dated 22.03.2017 to submit a demarcation map (Naksha Trace) for the lands taken on lease for the godown and showroom. In furtherance of the

letter dated 22.03.2017, the petitioner also submitted NOC/ affidavits of all the three coowners i.e. Sanjay Kumar, Dinesh Kumar and Vimla Devi

whose land had been taken on lease for the LPC Godown. The chain of documents pertaining to the ownership of the land taken on lease from Smt.

Shimla Devi alongwith the layout plan were also submitted by the petitioner. After submitting these documents as demanded by the respondents, the

petitioner kept on waiting for the Letter of Intent so as to start the distributorship. However, to his utter shock, the petitioner claims to have received a

letter dated 08.05.2017 issued by the Sr. Area Manager communicating that, upon field verification being carried, the variances stated below were

observed in reference to the lands described by the petitioner in the application form.

(1) the land offered for the showroom does not fall in theadvertised LPG location.

(2) that the land offered for the godown was owned by threepersons whereas the agreement was done with only one person.

The petitioner has further asserted that the advertised location was of the entire Tehsil Mandal and that the land offered by the petitioner for the

showroom is located in the Tehsil Mandal and thus, the respondents were not justified in raising the objection No.1 referred to supra. For the objection

No.2, the petitioner claims that the land offered for the godown falls in the exclusive share of Sanjay Kumar Khateek the lessor. The leased portion is

clearly identified as a demarcated area in the map and the co-owners have given their consent/NOC regarding the portion of the land leased out to the

petitioner. The petitioner thus claims that neither of the variances pointed out by the respondents were of substance and thus, he has challenged the

action of the respondents in rejecting his candidature and not issuing him the LOI for the disputed dealership.

The respondents, on the other hand, by filing a pertinent reply to the writ petition, have categorically denied the petitioner’s assertions. It is stated

in the reply that the location advertised was of revenue village Mandal and not of Tehsil Mandal. Such practice is consistently adopted by all the oil

companies all over the country. The respondents have defended their action stating that the FVC was conducted well after issuance of the

correspondence/ letters on which, the petitioner harps upon. The date of conducting the FVC is specified as 18.04.2017. Regarding the land offered by

the petitioner for the godown, a specific objection is raised that the total chunk of land measures 3 bighas and 10 biswas. The lease deed was

executed for a piece of land admeasuring 29X30 meters allegedly carved out from the 1/4th portion belonging to Shri Sanjay Kumar Khateek. It is

averred in the reply that a verified demarcation map of the land was neither submitted alongwith the application form nor was sent alongwith the

documents required from the petitioner vide letter dated 22.03.2017. The co-owners were not signatories to the lease deed and therefore, the land

offered by the petitioner for godown was not considered as compliant for allocation of the dealership. Regarding the land of the showroom, an

objection is raised that the land is located in the village Guddha, Tehsil Mandal whereas the advertisement stipulated that the land should be located in

the revenue village Mandal. On these grounds, the respondents have craved rejection of the writ petition.

In rejoinder to the reply, learned counsel for the petitioner has countered the submissions made in the reply and has filed the revenue documents

pertaining to the alleged demarcation of the land taken on lease for the godown and also the consent letters/ affidavits of the co-owners of the land.

However, it is not denied that these documents were procured after the stipulated last date of submission as mentioned in the advertisement and more

particularly, after the FVC was carried out.

Learned counsel Shri Muktesh Maheshwari vehemently urged that the petitioner’s candidature has been rejected on hypothetical and

unsustainable grounds. He urged that the advertisement nowhere stipulated that the location of the land should be in the revenue village Mandal. He

further urged that the consent of the co-owners has already been taken in relation to the plot taken on lease for setting up the godown and further, the

land has also been partitioned. He thus implored the Court to to accept the writ petition, set aside the impugned order/ communication dated

08.05.2017 and direct the respondents to issue the LOI to the petitioner.

Per contra, Shri Sandeep Shah learned counsel representing the respondents has placed reliance on this Court’s Judgments in the cases of Smt.

Anju Prajapat vs. HPCL & Anr. (SBCWP No.5837/2014) decided on 21.09.2015, Suresh Chander Khatik vs. IOCL & Anr. (SBCWP No.8938/2014)

decided on 11.01.2017 and Arun Kumar Nagda vs. IOCL & Anr. (SBCWP No.14499/2015) decided on 07.04.2017 and urged that all the arguments

advanced by the petitioner’s counsel are covered by the ratio of the aforesaid three judgments and as such, he urged that the petitioner is not

entitled to the relief claimed for. He contended that during FVC, the documents submitted by the petitioner were verified and the location offered by

him for the dealership were not found suitable for the dealership and as such, Corporation was well within its right to reject the petitioners candidature

for the disputed dealership.

I have given my thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced at bar and have gone through the material available on record.

It is clearly mentioned in the advertisement (Annexure-1) that the land should be located in the revenue village Mandal. The petitioner has tried to

stretch the location as mentioned in the advertisement claiming that name ‘Mandal’ referred to at point No.120 means Mandal Tehsil. However,

the said plea of the petitioner is per-se untenable. In clause No. 6.1.7 of the eligibility criterion prescribed by the respondent Corporation, it is clearly

mentioned that the plot of land should be located within 15 Kms. from the municipal/town/village limits. The said condition clearly means that where

the name of the location is referred, it shall mean the limits of the village, town or municipality concerned. Therefore the petitioner’s endeavour in

trying to extend the advertised location while imputing that the locations could be anywhere in Tehsil Mandal is farfetched and absolutely untenable.

This very aspect was considered in detail by a learned Single Bench of this Court in the case of Smt. Anju Prajapat (Supra). A similar argument was

repelled by relying on clause 6.1.7 of the eligibility criterion on and the petition was rejected. Likewise, the argument regarding consent of the co-

owners of the plot taken on lease for setting up the godown is also untenable because the affidavits of the co-owners cannot be considered compliant

with the requirements of the guidelines. A proper consent/ NOC should be reflected in the lease deed itself or annexed with the documents. The so-

called partition deed of the land on which, much reliance was lead by Shri Maheshwari was prepared on 14.08.2015 i.e. well after last date specified

in the application form. Manifestly thus, the petitioner was not having lands suitable for setting up the LPG dealership (other godown or showroom), by

the last date stipulated for submission of the application; complete in all respects and thus, he was not qualified for grant of the disputed LPG

Dealership.

In this background, the respondents were perfectly justified in rejecting the petitioner’s candidature vide communication (Annexure-8) dated

08.05.2017. Ex-facie, the said communication does not suffer from any illegality, irregularity or arbitrariness warranting interference by this Court in

exercise of its extraordinary writ jurisdiction.