Quazi Ruknuddin vs Union Of India & Ors.

The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following reliefs:

Facts of the case in brief are that respondent no.2 Indian Oil Corporation Limited had issued an advertisement on 19.05.2012, which was published in Hindi daily Dainik Bhaskar, Satna Edition, Page No.13, annexure P/1, for grant of distributorship under the Rajiv Gandhi Gramin LPG Distribution Scheme (RGGLV), for the notified location Barauli, Tehsil Ajaygarh, District Panna under open category, mentioned at Serial No.111. Under Clause 4 of the advertisement, the said distributorship was reserved for Open Category candidates. Clause 14 specifically stipulated that the application form was required to be submitted along with all supporting documents and that no document other than those submitted with the application could be considered at any subsequent stage. Further, Clause 3(h) provides that the land offered for establishment of LPG godown must be suitable in all seasons, accessible to trucks for unloading LPG cylinders, and exclusively owned by the applicant. In compliance with the aforesaid terms and conditions of the advertisement, the petitioner submitted his application on 20.06.2012 along with the prescribed demand draft and all requisite documents and vide communication dated 25.07.2012, the petitioner’s application was accepted. Subsequently, vide communication dated 04.09.2012, the petitioner was informed that draw of lots was scheduled on 26.09.2012 between the petitioner and Respondent No.7 for selection of LPG distributor at Barauli. On coming to know that Respondent No.7 had not submitted land documents as required under Clause 3(h) and had furnished only a rent note/agreement instead of proof of exclusive ownership, the petitioner submitted objections dated 25.09.2012 and 20.10.2012 before the competent authorities objecting to his inclusion in the draw of lots. The communication dated 01.08.2012 further reveals that the land documents initially submitted by Respondent No.7 had been rejected by the competent authority and the respondent no.7 was allowed to rectify the default beyond the cut off date, i.e. 20.6.2012, which is contrary to the advertisement and he was allowed to participate in the selection process, pursuant to which he was declared successful. After obtaining information with regard to the candidature of the respondent no.7, the petitioner submitted a representation/complaint on 22.10.2012 before respondent no.5 with regard to ineligibility of respondent no.7 vide annexure P/11. Being aggrieved with the allotment of LPG Distributorship in favour of respondent no.7, the petitioner preferred instant petition, in which vide interim order dated 29.1.2013, the allotment made in favour of respondent no.7 is subjected to final outcome of this petition.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that clause 3(e) of the advertisement defines family unit. clause (f) provides applicant must have Rs.2 Lacs in his account or the account of his family as defined under the family unit. Clause 3(g) provides that the applicant own 20x24 sqmt. undisputed land either in his name or in the name of family as provided under family unit. Further, clause 7 provides cut off date for submitting the form, i.e. on or before 20.6.2012 at 5.00 PM. It is further submitted that clause 14(b) & (c) contemplates that after submission of form, no addition/substraction/change of documents is permissible and the documents prescribed in the application are required to be submitted and no other document shall be entertained. It is further submitted that pursuant to the advertisement dated 19.5.2012, IOCL issued a brochure containing essential conditions. Learned counsel submitted that the respondent no.7 does not fulfil the condition of clause (f) of the advertisement of having total Rs.2 Lacs on the date of application in the name of self or the family members, therefore, used account of his friend having joint account with him for operating and using the money. It is submitted that the joint account with friend does not come within the definition of family unit as provided under clause (f) of the advertisement. Secondly, it is contended that condition of clause (g) has also been violated inasmuch as the details of land bearing Khasra No.733, Kharouni, mentioned by the respondent no.7 in his application was of joint ownership and a dispute with regard to partition of other lands is pending before court of SDM Ajaygarh. However, the respondent Company in utter violation of clause 14(b) and (c) of the advertisement, has communicated with the respondent no.7 that the land mentioned by him in his application is not suitable. Then, respondent no.7 submitted details of Khasra No.33/3, 36/3 and 37/3 and 1063/2, which has been considered for grant of distributorship contrary to clause 14(b), (c) and (g) of the advertisement and beyond the cut-off date. Further, it is submitted that the distributorship has been granted in violation of the Industry Record note, annexure R/2, dated 15.6.2010, which is for minor corrections, and not applicable in the year 2012 advertisement. Clause 2 whereof says only minor modifications are permitted in the text of advertisement. However, the advertisement dated 19.5.2012 was never modified or amended. Thus, industrial note is not applicable in the present case. It is submitted that as per clause 4 of the Ration card filed by respondent no.7, he belongs to BPL category, thus, a LPG distributorship cannot be allotted to a member of BPL category, which is against the mandate of policy. It is further submitted that vide I.A.No.9510/2014, application for taking documents on record has been filed to show that land which has been considered for distributorship beyond cut-off date contrary to the advertisement was disputed as the litigation has been pending since 2009. Vide I.A.No.3921/2016, the petitioner has placed on record the order dated 19.1.2016 passed by S.D.O. Ajaygarh cancelling the partition and Khasra as claimed by respondent no.7 as his own and consequently the mutation thereof has also lost its significance. To bolster his submissions, counsel for the petitioner has relied upon judgment of this court in the case of Jitendra Sharma Vs Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited, (2014)2 MPLJ 459, (para 7,8,9,10 & 11), Pankaj Mantri Vs Indian Oil Corporation, Bhopal, (2013)3 MPLJ 466 (Para 8 to 16), Banwari Baghel Vs Union of India, (2016)4 MPLJ 323 (Para 9 to 15), Vijay Pratap Singh Parihar Vs Union of India, ILR (2016) MP 963 (para 5 to 8 & 11 to 13) and Vijay Pratap Singh Parihar Vs Union of India, (2014) 4 MPLJ 668 (para 6 to 15).

Per contra, counsel for the respondent Corporation filed the return and submitted that selection of a RGGLV is to be done as per -the provisions of the “Brochure on Selection of Rajiv Gandhi Gramin LPG Vitrak Scheme”, annexure P/2, (for short RGGLV) after giving an opportunity to complete applications and correct minor errors to become eligible for draw. It is further submitted that Note 2 of the Industry Note provides as under :-

It is submitted that the respondent no.7 had offered land bearing Khasra No.733 in his own name mentioned in column no.9 of his application form, however, the said land was found to be unsuitable as it was on lease for a period of 10 years only. However, as the respondent no.7 has mentioned in column 10.4 of the application under the head "Other Assets/Property of family land" the ownership of other lands of which survey no. was not disclosed, therefore, as per the provisions of RGGLV Scheme, an explanation was sought through IOCL letter dated 1.8.2012 from respondent no.7 with regard to offered lands. In reply, the respondent no.7 stated that he inadvertently forgot to mention the said lands in column no.9. The said explanation was accepted and respondent no.7 was declared eligible for draw. Thus, there is no violation of clause (g) of the advertisement. It is further submitted that respondent no.7 had mentioned a joint account with one Ramdham Singh in Central Bank of India, Hardi Branch with account No.3183198067 having balance of Rs.2 Lacs on the date of application, thus there is no violation of clause (f) of the advertisement. Further, it is submitted that selection of present RGGLV is governed by Manual for Selection of RGGLV, clause 6.1(vi) whereof provides eligibility criteria. Since the applicant had shown Rs.2 Lacs in a joint account with a non-family member, the Evaluation Committee had awarded him only25/50 marks or 50% marks for this criterion. Thus, total marks obtained by respondent no.7, i.e. 85/100 was sufficient for him to qualify for the draw.

In rebuttal to the contentions made by the petitioner, counsel for the respondent no.7 has adopted the arguments putforth by counsel for the respondent IOCL and further submitted that the respondent no.7 was having land in his name and ownership as is evident from Rin Pustika, annexure R7/1. It is submitted that the property was joint property and is permissible as per clause 4(g) of Brochure annexure P/2 and he was rightly declared as successful candidate. The petitioner himself participated in the draw of lottery system for the distributorship of L.P.G. scheduled on 26.09.2012 at Jabalpur, after being unsuccessful, this petition is being filed by the petitioner on the flimsy grounds. To bolster his submissions, counsel for the respondent no.7 has relied upon the judgments of Apex court in the case o f Tata Motors Ltd. v. Brihan Mumbai Electric Supply & Transport Undertaking, (2023) 19 SCC 1 (para 52, 53), Division Bench order of this Court in the case of Jinendra Kumar Jain Vs. Union of India, dated 10.8.2011 passed in W.A.No.406/2008 (para 12, 17 and 20) and Division Bench judgment of Allahabad High Court, Lucknow in Avani Paridhi Energy and communications Vs. State of U.P. and others, dated 6.10.2025 in Writ C No.9597/2025.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

It is contended by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner that due to ineligibility of the respondent No.7, the allotment of LPG distributorship in favour of the respondent no.7 could not have been granted. It is submitted that the petitioner remained the sole successful candidate following the final selection process. However, in the draw, his candidature has not been opened. Therefore, respondent No.7 has been selected. If the candidature of the respondent No.7 had been properly evaluated, then there were no occasion for the respondent No.7 to compete in the draw and his application would have been rejected at the threshold. The petitioner has invited attention of this court to the documents commanding the selection process where mainly emphasis has been laid on advertisement published in the newspaper Dainik Bhaskar, dated 19-05-2012, annexure P/1, Brochure annexure P/2 and Industry Record Note, Annexure R/2. It is submitted that the advertisement contains conditions and eligibility criteria which are mandatory in nature and cannot be ignored. It is submitted that the person applying for the distributorship in an open category must have Rs.2,00,000/-of balance in the account. He must also own land having specification mentioned in clause 3(g) without any dispute. All requirements regarding the eligibility are required to be fulfilled and should be annexed with the application form prior to submitting it, i.e. on or before cut-off date 20-6-2012. The learned counsel has also invited attention of this court towards the brochure, Annexure P/2, which also contains the same eligibility criteria in clause 4. It is submitted that the mode of selection is provided in clause 3, according to which the minimum qualifying marks for selection is 80% and the selection is based on draw amongst the selectees.

It is submitted that clause 4(f) of common eligibility criteria provides that the applicant applying for RGGLV should have minimum total amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- put together from saving accounts in bank (as on date of application), free and unencumbered Fixed Deposits in Schedule Bank, Kisan Vikas Patra, NSE, bonds and any other investment etc. in the name of self or family members of the family unit, as defined above.

It is also further provided that for evaluation purpose, marks will be awarded to applicants of all categories based on the amount mentioned in the application. The family unit is defined in clause (e), which provides that 'family unit' in case of married person/applicant shall consist of individual concerned, his/her spouse and their unmarried son(s)/ daughter(s). In case of unmarried person/applicant, 'family unit' shall consist of individual concerned, his/her parents and his/ her unmarried brother(s) and unmarried sister(s).

On perusal of application, annexure R/1, it is found that the respondent no.7 has applied under single as well as married category. However, that was not permissible; but, still in the application as on both the single as well as married field 'tick mark' has been made, it is assumed that the respondent no.7 has applied under the single category. Now, as per the definition of family unit provided in the advertisement and brochure of selection in clause 4(e), it is clear that for a single person, family unit shall consist of individual himself, his/her parents and his/her unmarried brothers. From perusal of application from clause 10.2, it is found that the account number of Central Bank has been provided having balance of Rs.2 lakhs which contains the description of name of account holder as Kishori Lal Joint Account.

When the said entries filled by the respondent no.7 has been tested with clause 4(f) of Annexure P/2 and clause 3(f) of advertisement annexure P/1, it is found that the said eligibility of having joint account is not provided in the said documents. It is clarified in clause 4(f) that for evaluation purpose, marks will be awarded to the applicants of all the categories based on the amount mentioned in the application. It is the case of the respondents that the respondent No.7 has been awarded marks accordingly by assuming that Rs.1 lakh is owned by him and Rs.1 lakh is owned by his joint account holder. It is nowhere stated in the application that who is the joint holder. It is also not mentioned in the application whether that joint account holder is defined as a member in the family unit. In the return, Document No.1595/2025, in Para 7 it is stated that the account mentioned in the application was of the category of joint account, for which consent letter dated 19.6.12 has been obtained from the joint account holder Ram Dham Singh, Annexure R/11.

However, when such facts averred by the respondent No.7 has been scrutinized with the eligibility criteria provided in the advertisement, annexure P/1 and brochure, annexure P/2, it is found that such account was required to be in the name of either of the individual or of the family unit. But, as this account was joint account and was being held by respondent no.7 as well as third party, who is not part of the family unit, in the considered opinion of this court, could not have been considered. However, when clause 4(f) is considered, it is found that for evaluation purpose, marks could be awarded to applicants of all the categories based on amount mentioned. Condition is again tested with the present facts in hand, it is found that there is no question of such bifurcation on the consent of the joint holder. Such method is not permissible and defined in the brochure. It is further found that whether such condition can be diluted/ rectified by the Industry Record Note, annexure R/2, then it is found that clause 2 provides that the application should not be rejected on frivolous grounds, an opportunity is provided to applicants found ineligible to rectify the deficiencies by giving them an opportunity in writing. But, in the present case in hand, such deficiency could not have been rectified even by giving opportunity to the respondent no.7 because the criteria contains the person must hold bank account for financial stability having balance of Rs.2 lakhs. Even if assuming for evaluation the amount which is in the account is the criteria, then also such amount with joint bank account holder is not fulfilling the criteria as Joint Holder does not fall within the definition of the family unit, therefore, respondent no.7's candidature could not have been considered on the consent of the joint holder that 50% amount belongs to the respondent no.7 and 50% amount belongs to the third party. This seems to be an afterthought and have been made just to secure place in the selection.

The second disqualification which has been canvassed before the Court is that the respondent no.7 was not holding land of his ownership as required for the purpose of godown as per the advertisement, annexure P/1 and brochure, P/2. On perusal of the application form submitted by the respondent no.7, Annexure R/1, filed along with the return of the respondent Corporation, it is found that in clause 9, the respondent no.7 has given the details of the land Khasra No.733 with date of registration of deed 18.6.2012. The respondent corporation in its return document No.3503/2013 has submitted that when the evaluation of the form of the respondent no.7 was done, it was found that the land offered by respondent No.7 did not satisfy the eligibility criteria being leased land. Therefore, an explanation was sought by Annexure R/3 dated 1.8.2012, of which reply was sent by respondent No.7 by Annexure R/4 and affidavit, Annexure R/5 with Rin Pustika, Annexure R/6, wherein the land bearing survey No.33/3 was found to be recorded in the name of respondent No.7. It is the case of the petitioner that such process would not have been undertaken by the respondent Corporation just to select the respondent No.7. The respondent No.7 was not holding any land of his ownership or of the family unit defined under the brochure, therefore, there was no question of consideration of the application of the respondent No.7, but to give undue advantage to respondent No.7, such exercise of seeking explanation was done. The industry note provides that in case of deficiencies of not having suitable land, then the applicant should be given chance to provide another plot/ land in his name as per family unit norms with date of registration on or before the date of application. It is also mentioned in clause 8 that in such cases, since land is required under the eligibility criteria and not for process of evaluation, it would be in order to consider the alternate land, if the name of the applicant/ member of applicant's family unit and date of registration of the same is submitted on or before the date of application. However, if it is to be considered, it has to be duly verified for it being suitable by the FVC.

It is submitted that the Corporation has conducted verification for suitability and by report dated 29-12-2012, Annexure R/7, found the land suitable for the purpose. Therefore, as it is advised in the industry note that any application is not to be rejected on frivolous ground, the case of the respondent no.7 has been considered. From perusal of the document, Annexure R/6, it is found that the land bearing survey no.33/3 has been recorded in the Rin Pustika, which respondent no.7 has offered in the explanation. The evaluation sheet, annexure R/13, has been filed along with the additional return contains an endorsement that "the land offered by the respondent No.7 is of the lease land and cannot be considered, the other land papers submitted of land in the advertised location but no detail in the application". Thereafter, an endorsement is made "the land is situated at khasra no.33/3, 36/3, 37/3 and 1063/2 in the name of candidate at Kharouni". It shows that said consideration of the land was made after the explanation was sought from the respondent no.7. It is the case of the petitioner that such exercise could not have been done by the respondent Corporation and has been done only to give undue advantage for which malafide has been alleged against private respondents who are the officials of the Corporation. From perusal of annexure R/3, the letter seeking explanation, it states that the documents of land bearing survey no.33/3, 36/3, 37/3, 1063/2 have been provided along with the application, but it has not been mentioned in column no.9 in the application for the purpose of godown, in which reply was submitted by respondent No.7 that said information has been left to be recorded in s.no.9 by mistake, therefore, his lands of which documents have been submitted be considered. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondent Corporation in the return had filed the application annexure R/1 but have not filed any supporting documents to show that such documents were filed along with the application. It is further submitted that petitioner had also applied for such application under RTI Act which also does not contain the same application, which has been filed along with the document submitted along with the reply to the application under RTI Act, annexure P/9. It is submitted that as the documents were not available at the time of submission of application form that could not have been taken into consideration after the cutoff date as per clause 7 and 14(c) of the advertisement.

It is further submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that the said land on the basis of purported partition was not accepted by the family members and was subject to challenge by filing an appeal before the S.D.O. and accordingly, the said partition was set aside vide order dated 19.1.2016, by document A filed along with I.A.No.3921/2016. It is submitted that the appeal was duly filed against the said order and it was under consideration at the time when the application was submitted, therefore, the land was under dispute at the relevant time of consideration, could not have been taken into consideration.

It is clear from the common eligibility criteria mentioned in the brochure and advertisement that the applicant should own a suitable land of minimum 20 x 24 mts. in dimension at the advertised RGGLV location for construction of LGP cylinders storage godown, which also further clarifies 'own means having clear ownership title of the property in the name of applicant/member of the 'family unit' as defined in multiple dealership/distributorship norm. In case of ownership/co-ownership by family member, consent letter from the family member will be required .

Now, if the case of respondent no.7 is considered, then even assuming that the land under partition was owned by the brothers, as the applicant has mentioned his marital status as single/married, and, therefore, brother falls within the definition of family unit, then also consent is required from the brothers to own land. In absence of such consent and admittedly, in the present case in hand, the partition has not been accepted by the parties and the appeal has been filed within time at the time of consideration which has been allowed and partition has been set aside, it is clear that at the relevant point of time the respondent No.7 was not having the land in question in terms of clause 4(g) of the brochure and clause 3(g) of the advertisement. Therefore, without going into the details and the method of the selection process which may be permissible or not permissible, it is the opinion of this court that the respondent No.7 was not having the land at the time of consideration as per the requirement of allotment.

However, when such process has been scrutinized with the guiding principle of selection process filed as annexure R/2, it is found that the ineligible candidates can be given 21 days period for rectifying the deficiencies, however, those were required to be incorporated in the text of advertisement to eliminate contradictions with regard to acceptance of documents at a later date, i.e. after submission of application. However, from perusal of the advertisement it is found that such stipulation has not been incorporated in the advertisement. No appendix C has been annexed to or made part of the advertisement. Therefore, the selection criteria which was there at the stage of advertisement is a sacrosanct document for the selection purpose and according to which the respondent no.7 was not holding the land at the date of submission of the application and still today on the basis of order passed by S.D.O. dated 19.1.2016 filed along with I.A.No.3921/2016, the respondent No.7 does not hold the land in his ownership, there is no consent letter by the brothers, therefore, in the considered opinion of this court, the selection of respondent No.7 has not been made correctly.

A coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Jitendra v. Bharat Petroleum Corporation, 2014 SCC OnLine MP 1246 has held as under :-

A coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Banwari Baghel v. Union of India, 2016 SCC OnLine MP 4414 has held as under :-

The judgments cited by learned counsel for the respondent no.7 are distinguishable on facts and as such not applicable in the facts of the present case. The Supreme Court in the case of Tata Motors Ltd. v. Brihan Mumbai Electric Supply & Transport Undertaking, (2023) 19 SCC 1, while discussing the scope of judicial review has held that courts should generally be reluctant to interfere in contractual or commercial matters unless there is clear arbitrariness, irrationality, malafides or bias. However, the present is a case of clear violation of clauses mentioned in the advertisement, annexure P/1 and the brochure, annexure P/2. Thus, the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex court in Birhan Mumbai Electric Supply is also not applicable in the facts of the present case.

It is also submitted by counsel for the respondent no.7 that as petitioner has participated in the process, therefore, petitioner cannot challenge the process on the ground that conditions of the selection are not valid. However, when this argument has been considered, it is found that it is not the case of petitioner that conditions of advertisement or brochure are not valid on the basis of which he has also applied, to say that the principle of estoppel would attract in the hand, but, it is the case that on the basis of conditions mentioned in the advertisement as well as in the brochure, the respondent no.7 could not have been selected as he was not having eligibility for allotment of the distributorship.

It is also submitted that as the objection submitted by the petitioner before and after the selection process was over, the said objections were decided by order dated 29.12.2012, annexure R/8, but, the same has not been challenged in the present petition. When relief clause mentioned in the memo of petition is considered, it is found that the petitioner has challenged the entire selection process and has sought relief of declaration that such process be declared illegal, then, in any case, if any order passed subsequent, is not challenged then it is not going to make entire petition not maintainable. Therefore, petition is found to be maintainable for declaration of the entire process illegal.

In view of the above analysis of fact and law, it is held that the respondent no.7 was not having the eligibility as per the requirement mentioned in annexure P/1 and P/2 which are the basic documents and in absence of any change or modification as provided in annexure R/2 (industry note) or in the advertisement itself, no clarification could have been sought from the respondent no.7 at the later stage. Therefore, entire process is declared to be illegal and accordingly found to be vitiated.

Thus, petition stands allowed and disposed of. Respondent Corporation is directed to consider the candidature of the petitioner accordingly.