Paramjit Singh vs Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd.

Ritu Bahri, J.—The petitioner has approached this Court by way of instant writ petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the decision of the respondents whereby the claim of the petitioner for allotment of retail outlet has been rejected and further prayer is for directing the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner for allotment of retail outlet at the site located at Gago Bua to Singhpura Road.

The petitioner had applied for the retail outlet dealership in pursuance to the advertisement dated 16.9.2010 (P-1) at site located at Gago Bua to Singhpura Road on Highway 21. The petitioner had submitted the application well in time on 12.10.2010 (P-2). The criteria set out in the advertisement for evaluation of candidate for allotment of retail outlet dealership is as under:-

E VALUATION OF CANDIDATES

(A) For individual candidate include partnership Each candidate during the interview will be assessed by the selection committee broadly under the following parameters

The petitioner was in possession of 1/2 share of 28 kanal 15 marla of land on the road Gagu Buha Amritsar Road in village Singhpura along with his brother Amarjeet Singh (P-3). The relevant site plan attached with the application was Annexure P-4. The two affidavits of brother of the petitioner with regard to ownership of land and he will financially support his brother dated 07.10.2010 and 15.10.2010 (P-5 and P-5/A).

HPCL had advertised for the retail outlet at the same very road between village Singhpura to Bhikhipind in the year 2009 and the petitioner had applied for the same and he was allotted 35 marks out of 35 for that very piece of land for which the petitioner now is not being considered for any marks. A copy of the statement of the marks awarded by the interview committee of the said corporation at the relevant time is Annexure P-6.

On notice, a written statement has been filed by the respondents taking a stand that the petitioner is a married person as per his application. The land offered by the petitioner comprised in khewat No. 152, khatauni 402, Khasra Nos. 22//20, 21, 23//16/1, 25/2 & Khewat No. 152, Khatauni 406 Khasra No. 22//11/3 (Total area 28 kanal 15 marla) jointly owned by the applicant Paramjit Singh and Amarjit Singh, both son of Balwant Singh as per jamabandi 2004-05. The case comes under clause 4 or 5 of para 14 of the brochure where the petitioner''s share (approx 14 kanal and 7 marla) is more than the IOC''s requirement. The two affidavits given by petitioner of his brother cannot given any benefit to the petitioner for the purpose of marks. His brother does not fall in the definition of family unit. Moreover, as per clause 14 of the brochure, the petitioner was required to enclose the registered document with or without demarcation for portion of land offered by him. The petitioner has been given 0 marks out of 35 as per marks list (P-7). As per para 7(c) of the advertisement, qualifying marks for open category location is 60% of the total marks and minimum qualifying marks is 50% of the total marks. In case, the candidate secure 0 marks under the criteria "Capability to arrange land/infrastructure", the candidate must secure full 25 marks in the criteria "capability to arrange finance". The petitioner secured only 54 marks and thus was not qualified.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

The petitioner along with his application dated 12.10.2010 (P-2) had enclosed two affidavits of his brother (P-5 and P-5-A) who was co-owner of land. While assessing his suitability, he has been awarded 0 marks out of 35 marks in the category to provide land and infrastructure. The justification given by IOC is that two affidavits given by the brother of the petitioner cannot be treated as given by family unit, as the petitioner was a married person and only his spouse or unmarried daughter and sons would be included in the family unit. The affidavits of his brother should have been accompanied with a registered document as per para 14 of the brochure, which reads as under:-

In the absence of the registered document, the petitioner has been rightly awarded 0 marks and no benefit can be extended to the petitioner on account of terms and conditions of the brochure dated 01.03.2012 (P-10).

Reference at this stage can be made to a DB judgment of this Court in a case of M/s. Shree Gomukh Marketing Pvt. Ltd. vs. Hindustan Petroleum Company Limited, Panipat and another, passed in CWP No. 15681 of 2007 decided on 16.09.2008. The petitioner was dismissed and it was held that the Court while exercising the power of judicial review, will not examine the marks given to each candidate for allotment of a commercial venture i.e. a retail outlet. It is for the Oil Company to see its business interest and to award Letter of Intent keeping in view its policies. SLP filed against this judgment was dismissed.

Subsequently, a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court passed in CWP No. 13423 of 2010 titled as Parminder Singh vs. IOC and another, has followed M/s. Shree Gomukh''s case (supra) and dismissed the writ petition.

Recently, Division Bench of Allahabad High Court in a case of Smt. Shyam Lata vs. IOC and others, passed in Writ-C No. 32195 of 2012 had dismissed the writ petition where under clause 14(b) of the brochure issued by the IOC, the petitioner has not submitted any registered document of the land owners and it was held that the petitioner was rightly awarded 0 marks as per terms of the policy. SLP No. 33047 of 2012 filed against this judgment has been dismissed by Hon''ble the Supreme Court on 04.02.2013.

Keeping in view of the above fact and the consistent view taken by various Courts on the subject mentioned above, the writ petition is dismissed.