Sanjay Choudhary @APPELLANT@Hash Indian Oil Corporation Limited

The instant review application has been preferred on behalf of the petitioner Sanjay Choudhary under rule 64 of the Rajasthan High Court Rules, 1952

read with Section 114 and Order 47 of the CPC seeking review of the order dated 03.05.2018 passed by this court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition

No.1523/2014. The writ petition was filed on behalf of the petitioner for assailing the order/communication dated 01.01.2014 issued by the Indian Oil

Corporation Ltd. (for short, ‘IOCL’), whereby the application submitted by the petitioner for award of Rajiv Gandhi Gramin LPG Vitarak

dealership at the location Beri Khurd, District Nagaur was rejected and the security amount furnished by the petitioner was forfeited. The instant

review petition has been moved on the ground that while deciding the writ petition, this court failed to properly appreciate the documents of the

ownership of the plot submitted by the petitioner while applying for the questioned dealership and that the ownership document in the form of the

registered sale deed of the plot in question executed in favour of the petitioner’s wife in pursuance of the direction given by the respondent

themselves was ignored/not considered in entirety, thereby, vitiating the judgment under review.

Mr. Deepak Nehra, learned counsel representing the petitioner, vehemently urged that clear violation of the petitioner’s fundamental right is

manifested in the action of the respondent IOCL while rejecting his candidature for award of the dealership in question. Initially, the petitioner

aquired the land for setting up of the agency through a lease deed of 15 years. However, by letter dated 10.06.2013, the respondents themselves

intimated the petitioner to submit the sale deed, whereafter, the petitioner managed to secure registered sale deed for the land previously offered and

thus, the petitioner’s application was wholly compliant with the terms and conditions of the advertisement and the instructions applicable to the

allotment process and hence, as per Mr. Nehra, this court fell into a manifest error apparent on the face of the record while dismissing the

petitioner’s writ petition by the order dated 03.05.2018, which deserves to be recalled and the writ petition should be allowed.

Per contra, Mr. Sandeep Shah, learned counsel representing the respondent IOCL, submitted that the petitioner concealed material facts and tried to

mislead the court while pleading his cause in the writ petition. He pointed out that the petitioner’s counsel, upon being directed by this court,

placed on record the unified guidelines for selection of LPG distributors.

However, the guidelines which were submitted pertain to the year 2017, wherein the concept of leased as well as owned land was existing.  Mr.

Shah has placed on record alongwith an additional affidavit copy of the guidelines in vogue in the year 2012, which were applicable to the selection

process of the year 2013 (in which the petitioner applied) and pointed out that in these guidelines, there was no option of accepting leased land for

godown/storage required to set up the Gas Agency. At that point of time, ‘owned’ was defined in clause 6 (h)(iii) of the instructions as

having clear ownership title of the property in the name of applicant/family member(s) of the ‘Family Unit’ as on the last date for submission of

application as specified in the advertisement. Mr. Shah pointed out that the last date for submission of the application form in the questioned process

was 23.03.2013 and that till the said date, the petitioner either personally or through his wife or family unit was admittedly not having ownership title of

the land offered for setting up of the godown/showroom. He, thus, urged that the order under review is perfectly just and legal and that no case is

made out to exercise the exceptional powers of review available to this court so as to review or recall the order dated 03.05.2018. He, thus, craved

dismissal of the review application with heavy cost.Â

In rejoinder, Mr. Nehra, vehemently and fervently tried to draw the court’s attention to the guidelines prevailing in various oil companies for RO

dealerships and urged that in such guidelines, leased land is invariably accepted for setting up the retail Outlet and thus, as per him, the same

standard/yardstick should be applied to the allocation process at hand and a direction deserves to be given to the respondents to allot the dealership to

the petitioner pursuant to his success in the evaluation process.

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

that for warranting exercise of the exceptional powers of review available to this court under Rule 64 of the Rajasthan High Court Rules read with

Section 114 and Order 47 CPC, a strong case has to be made out by the applicant that the order under review suffers from an error apparent on the

face of the record or manifest illegality and then only can the court be persuaded to recall/review its own order. The thrust of contentions advanced by

Mr. Nehra for seeking review of the order dated 03.05.2018 was that the court failed to appreciate the title documents of the land offered by the

petitioner for setting up of the dealership placed on record alongwith the writ petition in the correct perspective. Suffice to say that these documents

were duly considered by this court and a satisfaction was recorded in the order under review that the petitioner being the applicant was required to be

in possession of land owned by him by the last date of submission of the application forms. Admittedly and indisputably, the last date for submission of

the application forms was 23.03.2013. The application form complete in all aspects had to be submitted by the aspiring candidate with the oil

company by that date, failing which the same would be liable to certain rejection. It is further undisputed from the record and as admitted by the

petitioner in his writ petition that till 23.03.2013, the petitioner only had in his hand, a piece of land leased to his wife by one Saleem Khan. True it is

that the IOCL intimated the petitioner by letter dated 10.06.2013 requiring him to submit the sale deed of the land as per the format. However, the

said communication was simply a means to give an opportunity to the petitioner to furnish a title deed of the plot compliant with the terms and

conditions of the advertisement and the unified guidelines. The letter never was intended to convey that the petitioner could submit a sale deed of a

land acquired after the last date for submission of the forms. Precisely, this was the reason assigned by the respondent IOCL in the letter dated

01.01.2014 for rejection of the petitioner’s application form. It is indeed unfortunate that while arguing the writ petition, the petitioner’s

counsel Mr. Nehra placed on record the unified guidelines applicable to the selection process of the year 2017. This could have been treated as an

attempt to mislead the court and a serious view could have been taken, but considering it to be an inadvertent error, this action of the learned counsel

Mr. Nehra is excused. However, the said guidelines would have no application to the case at hand because it would require to be governed by the

guidelines corresponding to the year of advertisement. The relevant applicable guidelines for the year 2012 owards have been filed on record by

Mr. Sandeep Shah, learned counsel for the respondents alongwith the additional affidavit of the Chief Area Manager, IOCL. As per the clause 6

(h) (iii) thereof, which reads as below, the applicant was required to have title of the property in his own name/family members name as on the last

date for submission of the application form, which was 23.03.2013.

“6 h. (iii) Own means having clear ownership title of the property in the name of applicant/family member(s) of the ‘Family Unit’ as

defined in multiple dealership/distributorship norm or land belonging to parents & grandparents (both maternal and paternal) of the applicant as on the

last date for submission of application as specified in the advertisement or corrigendum (if any). In case of ownership/coownership by family

member(s) as given above, consent in the form of a Notarized Affidavit from the family member(s) will be required.â€​

Admittedly, the petitioner was not seized of any piece of land owned by him or his family members till 23.03.2013. Hence, he was rightly denied the

dealership in question. The order under review deals with all relevant aspects of the controversy and thus, cannot be termed as suffering from

misreading of facts or error apparent on the face of the record. Hence, I find no reason to review the same. Â Thus, the instant review application is

dismissed as being devoid of merit.

No order as to costs.