Md. Afrose Alam vs Union Of India And Others

Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J

Instant petition has been filed for quashing the letter dated 24.01.2019 of Indian Oil Corporation by which the offer of opening of retail outlet dealership of Indian Oil Corporation made by the petitioner, was rejected.

The sum and substance of the Petitioner’s case is that pursuant to notice published in newspaper advertised on 25th November, 2018 for dealership of retail outlet of Indian Oil Corporation at Village Nijra Jori, District Chatra. On 11.01.2019, the petitioner was informed that he had been declared successful candidate for retail outlet dealer at the subject location and was asked to submit the documents within 10 days. The documents were submitted and they were found to be incomplete and he was given a further extension of time of 10 days’ vide letter dated 21.01.2019 to submit requisite documents, but before the expiry of extension period, the offer was revoked vide letter dated 24.01.2019.

It is submitted by learned counsel that the Petitioner was not given sufficient opportunity to produce requisite document and the offer was cancelled in an arbitrarily manner. It is submitted that abrupt cancellation was against note 3 of 4(viii) of Pustika which provides that 10 days’ time will be provided to the applicants for producing requisite documents.

Learned counsel on behalf of respondent nos.2 & 3 submits that letter of intent for the subject dealership retail outlet has already been awarded to third party on 15.12.2022, who has not been impleaded in the instant writ petition and therefore the instant writ application is bad for non-joinder of a necessary part.

Further, the petitioner had offered land owned by Md. Zakir Miyan as his grandfather. However, on scrutiny, the land document that was submitted by the Petitioner, did not find any document in the name of Md. Zakir Miyan rather it was in the name of Md. Aziz Kunjra. There is no ownership document of the subject land which is in the name of Md. Zakir Miyan. As per Clause 4 of Guidelines of 2018 for application to be filed, it is necessary that ownership document of the applicant or his family members, should be filed along with application, but till date, no such document has been filed.

Considering the submission advanced on behalf of learned counsel on behalf of respondents that Petitioner failed to file the document of ownership of the land offered for retail outlet there appears to be valid reason for cancellation of the Dealership.

Under the circumstance, this Court is of the view that there is no sufficient ground to interfere with the impugned order.

The writ petition stands disposed of. I.A., if any, is also disposed of.