Shiv Pal Baloda & Ors. @APPELLANT@Hash Indian Oil Corporation & Ors.

The petitioner Shiv Pal Baloda (hereinafter referred to as ‘the SPB’) is the applicant for allotment of retail outlet dealership (petrol pump) for

one of the sites condition of 170 locations which were advertised by the Indian Oil in the State of Rajasthan at Khandela, Palsana Road within 4

kilometers of Doodh Walo Ka Bas. The advertisement published on 11.06.2005 mentions of appointment of retail outlet dealership in the State of

Rajasthan at the locations mentioned or all around the said locations.

The SPB however was unable to secure the requisite merit in the interview conducted for the purpose of retail outlet and aggrieved of his

placement and denial of marks on the ground of having land within 4 kilometers of Doodh Walo Ka Baas, filed the present writ petition with a prayer

to direct the respondent-Indian Oil Authorities to award proper marks to him with regard to the land availability and to direct allotment of retail outlet in

pursuance of the advertisement with all consequential benefits.

The counter writ petition has already been preferred by the candidates who claims to have been placed at No.1 in the merit for the purpose of

allotment of the aforesaid retail outlet with the prayer that the respondents’ decision dated 08.11.2006 to cancel the said advertisement for the said

site and re-advertise the same be quashed and set-aside and he prays that he should be allotted and awarded the retail outlet.

As the issues are related in both the writ petitions No.8942/2007 filed by the SPB and 815/2007 preferred by the Ajeet Singh Shekhawat & Anr.

(hereinafter referred to as ‘the ASS and Anr.’) are heard together and being decided by this common order.

Mr. Nikhil Simlote Advocate appearing for SPB, the petitioner in S.B.C.W.P. No.8942/2007 submits that the petitioner was in all counts eligible to

be allowed the retail outlet and he therefore applied mentioning of having land situated in Khasra No.101 in his name as per the revenue record which

was adjacent to the road namely Palsana within 4 kilometers of village Dhoodh Walo Ka Bas. Learned counsel supports his contention by referring to

the certificate taken by the Tehsildar dated 07.04.2006 alongwith the map (Annexure-2) to the petition. It is his contention that the respondent

wrongfully granted him zero marks with reference to the land by relying upon a circular of Public Works Department, dated 27.12.2004. It is

submitted that the action of the respondents for outlet by reducing the land by 100 meters from the main road was totally unwarranted.

Further, his contention is that the placing of the another person i.e. the petitioners in the other writ petition ASS and his partner at No.1 in the merit,

was also unjustified. It is submitted that the land owned by ASS was not within 4 kilometers of Village Doodh Walo Ka Bas and was situated at a

distance of 5.6 kilometers from Village Doodh Walo Ka Bas and therefore he could not have been included. It is his submission that different

yardsticks have been adopted for the purpose of allotment and selection of petrol pump dealership. Learned counsel further submits that on the

complaint being made by him relating to aforesaid, the petitioner received information under Right to Information Act, 2005 on 02.05.2007 informing

him that as per the PWD norms the minimum size of the plot required as 35x35 meter and in case of the petitioners’ plot after leaving 100 meters

distance from the road passing near the plot, the balance frontage which available does not meet the PWD norms and was thus not suitable. The land

measuring was only 30 meters instead of 35 meters. It is contended that in absence of such condition in the advertisement the rejection was

unjustified. He further submits that another communication was received from the Indian Oil Corporation on 18.01.2007 informing him that on his

complaint investigation was conducted and in the investigation report, it was concluded that the land which he possessed did not come upto the norms

laid down by the PWD vide its letter dt.27.12.2004. It was also given out that the advertisement was ambiguous and there was apparent confusion in

the advertisement regarding the distance therefore there is likelihood of several prospective applicants having been misled in not applying for the

dealership. Thus, the petitioner SPB apprehended that fresh advertisement may be issued for the said retail outlet.

It is stated that after filing of the writ petition an interim order was passed by this Court vide its order dt. 25.11.2009 in the following terms:-

“.Meanwhile, the status quo with regard to appointment of operator at Kishan Seva Kendra of Gokul Ka Bas Tehsil-Khandela Block-Srimadhopur

District-Sikar published at Sr. No.319 of the advertisement dated 22nd May,2009 shall be maintained.â€​

The petitioner submits that another advertisement was issued but the same was also not acted upon after the petitioner filing the stay application

and even Hindustan Petroleum attempted to issue another advertisement for establishing the retail outlet in the same premises but after moving the

second and third stay application impleading Hindustan Petroleum as respondent; the respondents withheld their action.

So far as the petitioners ASS and his partner is concerned, his submissions is that in the advertisement itself it was mentioned in the heading itself

that the advertisement was for retail outlet at the locations mentioned or around the locations of retail outlet dealership proposed. Thus even if his land

did not fall within 4 kilometers of Village Doodh Walo Ka Bas, the placement of the petitioner ASS at No.1 in the merit cannot be flouted and he was

rightly placed at No.1 in the merit.

Learned counsel for the ASS, Shri Anoop Dhand, submits that the requirement of land as envisaged under the PWD Circular was available with

him and he was, therefore, entitled to allotment and merely on the basis of the complaint of the petitioner SPB, the consequent allotment for retail

outlet at Village Doodh Walo Ka Bas could not have been cancelled and there was no ambiguity in the advertisement. The decision was therefore

erroneous and the petitioner cannot be deprived of his rightful claim to establish retail outlet i.e. petrol pump at the site for which he applied.

Per contra, counsel appearing for the respondent-Indian Oil Corporation submits that while it is true that an advertisement was issued for granting

retail outlet within 4 kilometers of village Doodh Walo Ka Bas, however considering the complaint made by the petitioner SPB, the Indian Oil

Corporation Authorities after having gone through the investigation report reached to the conclusion that there was an ambiguity in the advertisement

with regard to the distance of site while ASS had submitted a certificate showing that his land was within 4 kilometers of Village Doodh Walo Ka Bas,

the investigating team had reached to the conclusion that such a certificate could not be relied upon as the measurement with all sites within 4

kilometers has to be calculated from the zero mark of Village Doodh Walo Ka Bas and cannot be measured of end of the boundaries of the village.

However, taking into consideration that the heading of the advertisement mentions of the appointment of dealership at the location at or around or

nearby to the same, the confusion could be created and there may be several prospective applicants who may have not applied and therefore, it was

contended that decision was taken by the corporation authorities to re-advertise the site with clarity giving opportunity to all aspirants.

Learned counsel also submits that the PWD circular is binding for the purpose of allotment of petrol pump and the petrol pump site has to be at the

distance of 100 meters from the main road as per the circular conditions laid down by the PWD for the purpose of allotment of petrol pump on the

State Highways. Learned counsel has relied on the circular dated 27.12.2004.

Having heard all the three counsels, and noting their written submissions, this Court finds that while it is true that the petitioner SPB had in his

possession titled land within four kilometers from the village Doodh Walo Ka Bas, however, the land was adjacent to the main road, was not upto to

measurement of a petrol pump required on State Highway for allotment of 35x35 meter after leaving 100 meters of distance from the Highway.

Although, the said condition was not provided under the advertisement, look at the circular issued by the Government of Rajasthan, Public Works

Department dated 27.12.2004 shows that the norms have been laid down for the excess of Fuel Stations, Service Stations and rest areas alongwith the

State Highways MOR’s and ODR’s. The said circular has been issued with the purpose of improvement of road safety. For the purpose of

the present petition, it would be useful to quote condition No.6.4, 6.5, 6.6 and 6.10 which reads as under:_

“6.4. Minimum plot size of fuel station shall be:

(i) On undivided carriageway in plain/rolling terrain 35mx35m

(ii)On divided carriageway in plain/rolling terrain 35m(frontage)x45m

(iii) In hills 20mx20m

(iv) In Urban Areas 20mx20m

6.5 The entry to fuel station shall be through deceleration lane of minimum length of 70m and width of 3.75m the exit through acceleration lane of

minimum length of 100m and width of 3.75m.

6.6 The payment composition of these acceleration / deceleration lanes and service road (if provided) would comprise Granular Sub base (GSB) with

minimum thickness of 150mm, three layers of water Bound Macadam (WBM)of 75mm thick each, Bituminous Macadam (BM) of 50mm thickness

and Semi Dense Bituminous Concrete (SDBC) of 25mm thickness.

6.10. The Oil Company owner shall have to enter into an Agreement for the license deed with the Government (Public Works Department) for the

use of PWD land. There would be one time fee of Rs.1.00 lakh in consideration of this agreement. The validity of the Agreement would be for a

period of 15 days.â€​

Thus, apart from being appointed as a retail outlet by the Oil Corporation, conditions laid down by the State Government have to be complied with.

In the circumstances, therefore, it cannot be said that the Indian Oil Corporation has committed any fault in not allowing marks to the SPB for the

land in question. As regards the empanelment of the petitioner ASS and another is concerned, it has been allotted the same on account of condition

mentioned generally for all the retail outlets in the advertisement i.e. at the location or nearby. Thus, preferably the location ought to be within the 4

kilometers range. However, it could be also nearby to the location. The Land Evaluation Committee found the land of the petitioner ASS in order and

granted the marks for the land purposes in the merit. The total marks of the partnership is 58.45 and thus he was entitled for dealership of the retail

outlet.

This Court finds that the investigation report mentions about there being any ambiguity in the advertisement and taking cue from the report,

Authorities have taken decision of re-advertisement on account for ambiguity.

A look at the advertisement goes to show that the declaration is not only made for the site for which the dispute has arisen but it relates to as

many as 170 different locations. Out of these various locations, finding that at various places there is a mention of location within particular area i.e. 2

kilometers or 5 kilometers on both the sites of a particular township for example item No.14, 23, 33, 37 and 87. As per counsel for the respondent-

Corporation allotments have already been made in all the said locations. If there is a ambiguity in the declaration in the advertisement then all the retail

outlets which have been allotted under the advertisement would have to be cancelled as ambiguity cannot be said to be in relation to only one retail

outlet but would be in relation to many. However, as the retail outlets under the advertisement have already been made functional, the decision taken

by the Authorities now to re-advertise the retail outlet on the ground of ambiguity cannot be said to be justified and is thus held to be illegal and

unwarranted. It is held that there was no ambiguity on the distance was flexible and what was required was that the site would be in the vicinity of the

locations.

In view of the aforesaid discussion, the writ petition No.8942/2007 filed by the Shiv Pal Baloda, is without merit and is hereby dismissed. The writ

petition No.815/2007 filed by Ajeet Singh Shekhawat and Another, is allowed.

The respondent-Corporation now is directed to proceed further in accordance with the advertisement treating the petitioner ASS and another as

empaneled at No.1 in the merit and proceeds for establishment of a retail outlet. The exercise may be conducted within a period of two months from

the date of submission of a certified copy of this order.

No costs.

A copy of this order separately be placed in the connected matter i.e. S.B.C.W.P. No.815/2007.