Kavita vs Indian Oil Corporation Limited & Anr

,,,

RAJIV SHAKDHER, J.",,,

Prefatory facts:,,,

This writ petition has been filed seeking the following substantive directions against respondent No.1 i.e., Indian Oil Corporation Limited (hereafter",,,

referred to as ‘IOCL’):,,,

“a) Quash the Seniority List (Annexure P-7) prepared by the Respondent Corporation for the preferential allotment of Retail Outlet to pending,,,

SC/ST LOI Holders (selected without land).,,,

b) Direct the Respondent no.1 Corporation to re-draw the Seniority list on the basis of the date of Interview.Â,,,

c) Quash the letter of appointment if any issued by the Respondent No.1 Corporation to the Respondent No.2 for the site COCO Saidpur, Village",,,

Saidpur Wazirpur    Farukhnagar Road, District Gurgaon (Haryana).â€​",,,

The aforementioned reliefs have been sought by the petitioner in the background of the following broad facts.,,,

The two oil marketing companies, namely, IBP Co. Limited (in short ‘IBP’) and IOCL had invited applications against advertisements issued",,,

for award of retail outlet dealership under the Corpus Fund Scheme, inter alia, under SC/ST category in respect of the State of Haryana.",,,

3.1 IBP issued its advertisement on 11.2.2004, while IOCL issued its advertisement on 13.2.2004. The last date for submission of applications, insofar",,,

as IBP was concerned, was fixed as 12.3.2004, while the last date for submission of applications by IOCL was fixed as 15.3.2004.",,,

3.2 Respondent No.2 filed his application with IBP for award of dealership of a retail outlet at Ballabhgarh City (WML), Faridabad (District),",,,

Haryana.,,,

3.3 In the usual course, both respondent No.2 and the petitioner were invited for interviews by IBP and IOCL, respectively, by their duly constituted",,,

committees.,,,

3.4 Consequent to the interviews being conducted, IBP issued a Letter of Intent (LOI) dated 31.8.2004, in favour of respondent No.2. Via this LOI,",,,

IBP offered to respondent No.2, a dealership of retail outlet situate at Ballabhgarh City (WML), Faridabad, Haryana, subject to the terms and",,,

conditions contained therein, including payment of licence fee, as may be decided from time to time for developing the said retail outlet and providing",,,

the same to respondent No.2 along with a sales room, storage tank, pumps and air facility, etc. â€" necessary for operating the dealership.",,,

3.5 Likewise, IOCL issued a LOI dated 30.9.2004, in favour of the petitioner, whereby, she was offered a dealership of the retail outlet situate at",,,

Haily Mandi-Pataudi Road, Gurgaon, subject to the fulfillment of the terms and conditions contained therein, and payment of licence fee. As in the",,,

case of respondent No.2, IOCL too, intended to hand over a retail outlet to the petitioner comprising a sales room, storage tank, pumps and air facility,",,,

etc. â€" necessary for operating the dealership.,,,

3.6 As events evolved in 2007, IBP merged with IOCL. The record shows that IOCL was unable to hand over a developed site for running a retail",,,

outlet to the petitioner and other similarly circumstanced applicants. However, interestingly, IOCL kept the LOIs issued in favour of various applicants,",,,

which included the petitioner, alive.",,,

3.7 Perhaps exasperated with the delay, on 28.9.2011, the petitioner took recourse to the Right to Information Act, 2005 (in short ‘RTI Act’) by",,,

preferring an application in that behalf, whereby she chose to raise a query with regard to LOIs issued concerning the retail outlets. The Public",,,

Information Officer, vide a response dated 3.11.2011, attempted to provide the necessary information. Â",,,

3.8 Since, the petitioner was not satisfied with the response provided by IOCL, she preferred an appeal with the Appellate Authority appointed under",,,

the RTI Act, on 1.12.2011.",,,

3.9 The Appellate Authority vide order dated 21.12.2011, directed the IOCL to provide necessary information with regard to the said LOIs.",,,

Resultantly, vide communication dated 27.12.2011, IOCL provided the details qua the said LOIs to the petitioner. Pertinently, along with the",,,

necessary information appended to its communication sent in that regard, IOCL also referred to the LOI dated 30.9.2004, issued in favour of the",,,

petitioner, as also, the LOI dated 31.8.2004, issued in favour of respondent No.2.",,,

4.1 The record shows that the since IOCL, despite persistent efforts, was unable to obtain land at the proposed site, the Union Ministry of Petroleum",,,

and Natural Gas (for short ‘MPNG’) intervened in the matter and via Policy letter dated 12.4.2012, permitted all the pending SC/ST LOI",,,

holders, as a one-time measure, to arrange for land, at the place of their own choice anywhere in the country, irrespective of State/Class of market,",,,

subject to the offered land meeting the requisite techno-commercial viability norms.,,,

4.2 Pertinently, the aforementioned policy letter made it clear that if the LOI holders failed to utilise the option given to them within a period of one",,,

year, the LOI issued to them would stand cancelled. The contents of this policy letter were communicated to the petitioner by IOCL vide",,,

communication dated 26.10.2012, as also to every other LOI holder.",,,

4.3 However, what was supposed to be a one-time measure with a life span of one year was infused with life from time to time. The last extension",,,

granted, extended its life span till 31.3.2018.",,,

4.4 The communications sent by IOCL to the petitioner from time to time, in this behalf, are dated 17.10.2013, 1.7.2014, 7.4.2015 & 20.7.2016.",,,

4.5 It appears that in the interregnum, MPNG, on 3.8.2016, approved certain amendments to the Company Owned and Company Controlled (COCO)",,,

divestment guidelines (hereafter referred to as ‘COCO Guidelines’). Amongst others, one such amendment which was brought about, in effect,",,,

stipulated that the seniority for award of retail outlet would be determined based on the date of issuance of LOI. This aspect is adverted to in Clause,,,

(B)(4)(d)(iii) of the amended COCO Guidelines.,,,

4.6 Besides this, in Clause (B)(4)(D)(iv), a provision was made that if the dates of LOIs issued to the applicants were identical, then, the date of",,,

Name of  the

Applicant","D a t e  ofÂ

Interview

(as per RTI)","Date of

issuance of LOI","Delay in

issuance of

LOI

Ranjit Singh

(Respondent

no.2)",06.08.2004,31.08.2004,24 days

Kavita

(Petitioner)",21.07.2004,30.09.2004,71 days

Sarita Singh,14.08.2004,30.09.2004,48 days

Neeraj Sonkar,17.08.2004,30.09.2004,45 days

Natasha Kumari,17.08.2004,30.09.2004,45 days

Uma Kant,24.09.2004,19.10.2004,26 days

Gurpreet Kaur,21.09.2004,03.11.2004,44 days

Manish Kumar,10/11.08.2004,22.11.2004,103 days

Renuka,06.10.2004,27.11.2004,53 days

Tina,20.09.2004,30.11.2004,71 days

Saroj Bala,"23.09.2004/24.09.

2004",27.12.2004,96 days

Tarun Kumar,07.10.2004,27.12.2004,82 days

Pawaria,,,

Manakshi Ranga,04.11.2004,27.12.2004,53 days

Dr. Pawan

Kumar",03.11.2004,02.06.2005,192 days

Asha Rani,05.10.2004,06.06.2005,245 days

Neelam Kumari,22.09.2004,14.06.2005,266 daysâ€​

11.3 As according to him, in terms of O.M. dated 9.10.2000, the entire process of allotment had to be completed within 145 days. The emphasis, as",,,

indicated above, was on the fact that after the interview was conducted and result was declared, the LOI had to be issued within 15 days of the result.",,,

In this context, Mr. Kanth stated that the date on which interviews were held and the result was declared was a better criterion for determining the",,,

seniority, as against the date of issuance of LOIs.",,,

At first blush, this appears to be an attractive proposition. However, a closure look of the data, set forth above, would show that the dates of",,,

interviews for various LOI holders, also cannot offer a satisfactory solution, as much would depend upon as to when the committee tasked with the",,,

job of holding interviews is to convene.,,,

12.1 It is possible that the committee so constituted, is unable to hold interviews of all candidates on a given date. Therefore, merely, because",,,

interviews are held on different dates and results are declared thereafter, perhaps, on separate dates, would also not offer, a satisfactory criterion. The",,,

only reason that Mr. Kanth suggests that the date when the interviews were held and the results declared was a better criterion is because the,,,

petitioner’s interview was held on 21.7.2004, whereas the interview of respondent No.2 was held on 6.8.2004.",,,

12.2 However, what Mr. Kanth forgets is that respondent No.2 had filed his application for allotment of retail outlet with IBP, prior to its merger with",,,

IOCL.,,,

12.3 Therefore, while respondent no.2’s interview was held later, fortuitously, the LOI, in his case, was issued on a date earlier to that when",,,

IOCL issued the LOI in favour of the petitioner. The LOI, as indicated above, was issued on 31.8.2004 in favour of respondent no.2 while, IOCL",,,

issued the LOI in favour of the petitioner on 30.9.2004.,,,

No doubt, the period of delay, as Mr. Kanth says, between the holding of interviews and the declaration of results and hence issuance of LOI, is",,,

not uniform, but the reasons for delay are not available on record.",,,

13.1 There could be several reasons for delay including the delay on account of generation of Field Inspection Report. The record does not show as to,,,

who was responsible for the delay. That being so, in my view, no fault can be found with IOCL’s action on this ground. IOCL, in its own wisdom,",,,

evolved a criterion, which, when applied, did not bear fruit for the petitioner. The fixation of criteria for determination of seniority falls within the",,,

domain of policy formulation. The courts have steered clear of interdicting policy formulated by the State and its instrumentalities unless it comes to a,,,

conclusion that it is patently unfair, discriminatory and irrational. I am unable to come to the conclusion that the policy falls foul of any of the aforesaid",,,

well established measures.,,,

In this context, it is also important to note that are no malafides attributed to IOCL, as none can be attributed, given in the circumstances obtaining",,,

in this case.,,,

Therefore, for the foregoing reasons, I am unable to persuade myself to interfere with the decision taken by IOCL, which is, to issue the allotment",,,

letter in favour of respondent No.2. For the very same reason, I am also not inclined to quash the seniority list as prayed for by the petitioner.",,,

Accordingly, writ petition is dismissed.",,,

The interim order dated 31.3.2017 will stand dissolved.,,,

IOCL will, however, consider allotting a retail outlet to the petitioner in case a decision is taken to extend the validity period of LOIs generally,",,,

including that of the petitioner, if she otherwise meets the extant requirements. There shall, however, be no order as to costs.",,,