Miss N. Sandhya Shree vs M/s. Indian Oil Corporation Limited

A.S. Bopanna, J.—The petitioner is before this Court assailing the order dated 18.07.2012 impugned at Annexure-D and the selection results also dated 18.07.2012 impugned at Annexure-E to the petition. The petitioner has also sought for a declaration that the petitioner is entitled to be selected for a IOC Retail Outlet (Petrol Pump) Dealership located on National Highway No. 7 (N.H. 7) in between Mudugurki and Venkatagirikote, Bangalore Rural District. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the petition papers.

The respondent-Corporation herein had notified through a Brochure dated 01.03.2012 for selection of retail outlet dealers and the same was advertised on 11.04.2012. The petitioner was one among the applicants who had responded to the same. The petitioner had filed her application on 10.05.2012. She was called for interview before the Selection Committee on 18.07.2012. The details furnished by the petitioner and the requirements to be completed by her were considered for the purpose of granting marks towards selection of the suitable candidates on the said date. One of the requirements was with regard to making available suitable site for locating the retail outlet.

In the instant case, insofar as the father of the petitioner possessing certain lands and the father filing an affidavit agreeing that the property would be leased in favour of the petitioner in the event of the petitioner being selected for the dealership is not in dispute. One other aspect which was also required to be considered by the respondent-Corporation is with regard to suitability of the land based on its location keeping in view the existence of the Median near the land which divides the road. In that regard, the opening/carriage way in the median prescribed is at a distance of 300 mts. from the site in ''question. In the instant case, the respondents on inspection found that there was an opening/carriage way at about 100 mts from the site offered by the petitioner. It is in that circumstance, the respondents were of the view that the same does not satisfy the requirement as indicated in Clause 15(13) of the Regulations. Hence, the case of the petitioner has been rejected.

Respondent-Corporation have filed their objection statement and have in fact referred to these aspects of the matter to indicate that the application has been rejected for the said reason. It is also contended on behalf of the respondents that when the rejection had been made based on a spot inspection carried out on 05.07.2012 and when the petitioner has not raised any grievance with regard to the same at that point, the petitioner cannot be heard to complain at this juncture. It is therefore contended that insofar as the instant grievance, the Regulations also provide for raising a grievance/complaint as per the Internal Grievance Redressal Mechanism as contemplated under Regulation 18 of their Regulations. It is thus contended that the case of the petitioner is liable to be rejected.

The petitioner has filed a rejoinder and along the same, documents have been produced with regard to the actual status of the opening/carriage way in the Median by referring to the communication dated 31.12.2012 issued by the National Highways Authority of India.

In this background, the only question that would arise for consideration is as to whether the application of the petitioner could have been rejected on the ground that there is an opening/carriage way in tire Median at about 100 mts. from the site which has been offered for locating the retail outlet. In fact, the respondents due to that non-suitability criteria have not awarded any marks under the said head though the availability of the site is not disputed and the total marks thereafter awarded is at 41.66. If the criteria relating to the suitability of the site was taken into consideration, the petitioner would have been entitled to the maximum of 35 marks under the said head. Since all other criterions have been satisfied and this was the only criteria, the petitioner contends that she would have secured the maximum marks mentioned under the said head.

Be that as it may, in any event, there are no other persons who have secured more marks than the petitioner and therefore, the only consideration is with regard to suitability of the land offered by the petitioner keeping in view the requirement prescribed. No doubt, as pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondents, the inspection was carried out on 05.07.2012. To the said inspection report, a drawing had also been enclosed indicating that there is an opening/carriage way in the median at about 100 kms from the site in question. Certainly, in view of the existing position at the spot, the petitioner had no other option but to accept the fact situation and sign the Mahazar. Subsequent to the filing of the instant petition and in the light of the defence being put forth by the respondents, the petitioner has secured the clarification from the National Highways Authority of India with regard to existence of the Median opening which is the subject matter herein.

The communication dated 31.12.2012 which is produced along with rejoinder would indicate that the National Highways Authority have stated that the said opening/carriage way in the Median which is existing is an unauthorized median opening and they have taken steps to raise the issue before the local authority for the purpose of closing the same. Therefore, in such circumstance, when the median opening is not an authorized one and the authorities concerned are also taking steps to see that such unauthorized opening is rectified and it is closed, the same would become relevant of consideration.

Learned counsel for the respondents no doubt would contend that the petitioner cannot be granted the relief since she has not approached the Grievance Redressal Authority immediately to bring these aspects before the Redressal Forum. At this juncture, there would be no difficulty for this Court to direct the petitioner to raise the issue by taking up all contentions that have been taken up herein before the Redressal Forum. However, in the instant facts, in view of the subsequent development, the respondents would have to reconsider the matter which in itself would amount to a grievance redressal procedure.

Furthermore, though it is contended that the Mahazar was drawn on 05.07.2012 and the petitioner has not raised the issue immediately thereafter, what is also to be noticed is that the instant petition was filed on 05.10.2012 before this Court. Therefore, even from the date of the Mahazar and from the date of communication of non-acceptance of the application of the petitioner, it cannot be said that there is inordinate delay much less laches on the part of the petitioner. In such circumstance, when there is material to indicate that the opening/carriage way in the Median was an unauthorised one, the respondents certainly would have to reconsider the case of the petitioner in that light and thereafter come to a conclusion as to whether the petitioner is entitled to any marks under the category of suitability of land. In such circumstance, I am of the opinion that the rejection as made and the marks presently awarded is not sustainable and the impugned documents at Annexures-D and E stand quashed. The matter is remitted to the respondent-Corporation to reconsider the case of the petitioner in the light of the subsequent documents and such other materials that the petitioner may produce before the authority.

With the said directions, the petition stands disposed of.