Md. Sahidullah vs Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. & Ors

Shekhar B. Saraf, J

This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India wherein the writ petitioner is aggrieved with a letter issued by the Indian Oil Corporation Limited rejecting the application for RO Dealership of the writ petitioner under OBC category. In the said letter the designated authority has pointed out that on the date of making the application, i.e. December 25, 2018, the petitioner was not the lessee of the plot that had been indicated by the petitioner. Accordingly, the candidature of the petitioner was relegated to be considered under Group-3 instead of Group-1.

The case of the petitioner is that the execution of the document of lease had taken place on December 24, 2018 and the document had been presented at the registered Office on the same day by way of commission. Since the document has been executed by way of commission, the Hamda Ammal Vs. Avadiappa document was finally registered on December 26, 2018.

The petitioner has relied upon a decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Pathar and 3 Ors., reported in (1991) 1 SCC 715 for the proposition that registration of a document of a particular date relates back to the date of execution of the deed of conveyance. In the light of the above decision, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the date of registration has to be taken on December 24, 2018, and accordingly, his application that was made on December 25, 2018 should be accepted under Group-1, as the date of execution was on December 24, 2018.

Furthermore, the petitioner relies on Clause 4 Sub-Clause (v) (a) of the Brochure for Selection of Dealers for Regular & Rural Retail Outlets Through Draw of Lots/Bidding Process to indicate that only the land is required to be available with the applicant as on the date of the application. Accordingly, the deed of lease need not be even executed on the date of the application.

Per contra, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Authorities submits that this writ petition should be dismissed in limine, as the petitioner has not come with clean hands before this Court. He submits that the affidavit filed by the petitioner dated December 20, 2018 is also false to his knowledge. He further submits that the affidavit contains statements that are not true. He refers to Clause 12, Sub-Clause (a) to indicate that the affidavit states that the documents in support of the claim are attached along with the application form. He submits that this statement cannot be true as the lease deed was executed only on December 24, 2018 and registered thereafter on December 26, 2018. He submits, therefore on December 20, 2018 this statement could not have been made by the petitioner. He further relies on the application form for retail outlets and dealership wherein in Clause 15, the petitioner has undertaken that he is in possession of the supporting documents in original in respect of the lease deed. Counsel submits that as the lease deed was registered on December 26, 2018, the undertaking is clearly false. He relied on an unreported decision of this Hon'ble Court in the case of Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Samir Barman & Anr., (F.M.A. 2686 of 2015 with wherein a similar situation was before the Division Bench. In that particular case, the petitioner had executed a document of lease on October 10, 2013 and the same got registered only on October 22, 2013. On the date of the application form that is October 17, 2013, the petitioner did not have the document registered. This application of the petitioner therein was rejected on the ground that on the date of submission of application the applicant did not have a registered lease deed as required under the terms of the terms and conditions of the guidelines.

The Division Bench upon examination all these facts came to the conclusion that the petitioner was required to comply with the terms and conditions enumerated in the application strictly and no equity would lie in favour of the petitioner in such circumstances. The relevant paragraphs are enumerated hereinbelow :-

"We are not considering when exactly the contents of the documents would come into effect but we have to see whether there is strict compliance of the terms and conditions proposed in the guidelines. If we take a view other than what is stated above, an unregistered document holder whose documents registered say after one month or one year or five years or ten years can also claim such equity.

The dealership for LPG is nothing but a social obligation which has to be complied with by the corporation and their terms and conditions have to be complied with in letter and spirit as indicated in the guidelines otherwise they will be in a position where there is no certainty in selecting a candidate for dealership if variable interpretations on subjective and equitable principles are given to the terms and conditions enumerated in the application.

In the light of above observations, we are of the opinion that the document submitted with the application as on 17.10.2013 was not a complete document in terms of the terms and conditions of the advertisement and was rightly rejected.

Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order is set aside.

Learned Counsel for the respondent Authorities also submits that draw of plots has been completed and one person has been selected for the RO Dealership. In these circumstances, he submits that there is no scope of considering the application of the petitioner any more.

I have heard the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of all the parties and perused the materials placed on record.

On the above factual matrix, the law with regard to complying with all formalities on the date of making an application is no longer res integra. The Supreme Court in the catena of judgments has held that if the applicant is not qualified on the date of making of the application, no sympathy can be extended to such an applicant. Reasons for the same are manifold, such as granting sympathy to one person would act as being unfair on another person who fulfilled all the criteria(s) on the given date.

The Supreme Court in the case of Jasbir Rani Vs. State of Punjab and Hariyana, reported in (2002) 1 SCC 124, in Paragraphs 11-14 as also in the case of State of Rajasthan Vs. Mitendra Kumar, reported in JT 1997 (7) SC 287 in Paragraph 6 of the said decision have dealt with the issue of cut-off age of a person on the date of an application and held that no sympathy can be shown to such an applicant who was not of the particular age as required in the application.

Similar principles have been enunciated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ashok Kumar Sonkar Vs. Union of India & Ors., reported in (2007) 4 SCC 54 and in the case of Maruti Udyog Vs. Ramlal, reported in (2005) 2 SCC 638.

This particular case is on similar lines and in my view it is incumbent on any person who makes an application for a dealership to comply with all the terms and conditions as per guidelines issued by the respondent authorities. Failure to comply with the same strictly would tantamount to rejection of the application. If the writ Court were to be sympathetic or to examine in great detail the action of the respondent authorities in rejecting the said application, it would amount to travesty of justice for those persons who have complied with all the terms and conditions. It is only in the case where the writ petitioner can show a clear and palpable case of mala fide and/or arbitrary action on behalf of the respondent authorities that the writ Court would enter and correct the wrong.

I do not find such a situation in the present factual matrix. I am further emboldened by the view of the Division Bench judgement in Samir Barman (Supra). In fact, I am bound by the judgment of the Division Bench of Calcutta High Court. In view of the same, I see no reason to interfere with the decision taken by the Indian Oil Corporation Limited and, accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.

There will be no order as to costs.

Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties, on priority basis.