AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Date : 06-08-2026
The petitioner has filed the instant application for the following reliefs:
“That, petitioner challenges and disputes the legality and validity of order dt.3.10.18 passed by respondent No.4 whereby application of the petitioner bearing Ref: No.BAO/IOC02313541713082017 for award of LPG Distributorship at location - BOUNSI, District Banka, under open (W) category advertised on 17.6.17, Mkt Plan 2017- 18 has been rejected.
That, the reason assigned in the said order dt.3.10.18 is that the land offered by the petitioner does not fall underadvertised location and petitioner does not have own land in the advertised location at Bounsi is apparently wrong. illegal, and mala fide as the petitioner is resident of village Panchayat Kaswa Mandar, which comes under Bounsi Nagar Panchayat, and offered land also falls in the same location of village Kaswa Mandar under Bounsi Nagar Panchayat and as such rejection of candidature on the ground that land offered by petitioner is not fall under advertised location, and she has not her own land in the advertised location of Bounsi is apparently wrong, illegal, unwarranted, mala fide and fit to be rejected by this Hon'ble Court.”
The brief facts culled out of the Writ petition are that the respondent Oil Marketing Company issued an advertisement dated 17.06.2017 inviting applications for appointment of LPG distributors at various locations, including Bounsi in the district of Banka. Subsequently, a corrigendum was issued in July, 2017 clarifying that the location "Bounsi" would also include Village Panchayats Daliya and Kaswa Mandar. The petitioner, being a resident of Village Panchayat Kaswa Mandar, Bounsi Block, applied for the LPG distributorship, by offering land belonging to her family, situated at Village Panchayat Kaswa Mandar for the proposed showroom and godown. According to the petitioner, the offered land falls within the advertised location in view of the corrigendum as well as the notification constituting Bounsi Nagar Panchayat.
It is the case of the petitioner that after scrutiny of her application, she was declared eligible, to participate in the draw of lots and was ultimately declared successful in the draw, held on 27.12.2017. Thereafter, she deposited the requisite amount of Rs.40,000/- and submitted all the necessary documents, as required by the respondent. Field Verification of Credentials (FVC) was also conducted on 28.02.2018, during which the officials inspected the land offered by the petitioner. However, by letter dated 03.10.2018, the respondent rejected her candidature on the grounds that the land offered by her, did not fall within the advertised location and that she had stated that neither she nor her family members owned land at Bounsi.
The Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that both the grounds assigned in the impugned order are wholly arbitrary and contrary to the advertisement as well as the corrigendum issued by the respondent itself. It is submitted that once Village Panchayat Kaswa Mandar had been specifically included within the advertised location of Bounsi, the respondent could not reject the petitioner's candidature by treating the offered land, as falling outside the advertised location.
It is further submitted by the Learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner had never stated that she did not possess land within the advertised location; rather, she had consistently disclosed that the offered land was situated at Village Panchayat Kaswa Mandar, which forms part of the advertised location.
The Learned counsel further submits that after declaring the petitioner successful in the draw of lots, accepting the requisite fee and conducting field verification, the respondent could not reject her candidature on grounds contrary to its own advertisement and corrigendum. It is lastly submitted that although the petitioner submitted a representation against the order of rejection, the same was not considered, compelling her to file the present Writ petition seeking quashing of the impugned order and consequential reliefs.
A counter affidavit was filed on behalf of the respondents. The Learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the petitioner was declared successful in the draw of lots only on the basis of the particulars furnished in her application and that issuance of the Letter of Intent was subject to successful Field Verification of Credentials (FVC) and fulfilment of all the eligibility conditions, prescribed in the advertisement and the selection guidelines.
The Learned counsel for the respondents submits that during the Field Verification it was found that the land offered by the petitioner for the showroom, situated at Mouza Kaswa Mandar, did not fall within the advertised location of Bounsi. It is further submitted that the petitioner herself, by letter dated 28.02.2018, admitted that she did not own any land within the advertised location and also failed to offer any alternative eligible land, despite being afforded an opportunity. Consequently, the FVC Committee recommended cancellation of her candidature, which was duly approved, and the rejection letter dated 03.10.2018 was issued.
The Learned counsel for the respondents further submits that the petitioner has misconstrued the corrigendum issued by the respondent. According to the respondents, the advertised location was the revenue village Bounsi falling within Gram Panchayat Kaswa Mandar and not the entire Gram Panchayat. It is submitted that Gram Panchayat Kaswa Mandar comprises three separate villages, namely, Bounsi, Kaswa Mandar and Naththan, and since the land offered by the petitioner is situated at Mouza Kaswa Mandar, it falls outside the advertised location. It is further submitted that the notification relied upon by the petitioner regarding constitution of Bounsi Nagar Panchayat is merely a draft notification inviting objections and has no bearing on the eligibility criteria prescribed in the advertisement.
The Learned counsel for the respondents, therefore, submits that the petitioner's candidature was rejected strictly in accordance with the terms of the advertisement and the applicable selection guidelines. It is contended that there is neither any illegality nor arbitrariness in the impugned action warranting interference by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and, accordingly, the Writ petition deserves to be dismissed.
In support of the case of the respondent Corporation, the Learned counsel has relied on the following judgments of the Division Bench of this Court reported in (1) 2012 (2) PLJR 783 (M/s Indian Oil Corporation Limited Vs. Raj Kumar Jha & ors), and (2) order passed in LPA No. 925 of 2012 (Mukesh Pandey Vs. The Hindustan Petroleum Corporation & Ors.).
The observations made by the Hon’ble Division Bench in M/s Indian Oil Corporation Limited (supra) are quoted hereinbelow:
“8.We are of the opinion that the Corporation being the State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution is supposed to act fairly, reasonably and uniformly and has to be objective in its approach. Once the standard is set out in the advertisement, the Corporation has to adhere to the said standard without any variation. In case, the Corporation allows any alteration the same will amount to subjective approach which is frowned upon by the Courts time and again. To remain objective the Corporation is required to adhere to the standards mentioned in the advertisement. In the present case, it is not in dispute that the application made by the writ petitioner was not in conformation with the requirements mentioned in the advertisement. In our opinion, the Corporation was justified in rejecting the application of the writ petitioner.
9.The Learned Single Judge ought not to have interfered with the decision of the Corporation which was taken in consonance with the terms and conditions contained in the advertisement. Besides; may be, in the present case it was a mere typographical error. However, there might be a case of mischief or misrepresentation also. It is difficult to draw a line where an error ends and a mischief or misrepresentation begins. The best way to avoid discrimination is strict adherence to the standards mentioned in the advertisement. For the aforesaid reasons we hold that the Corporation was justified in rejecting the application of the writ petitioner. The Appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment and order dated 28th January, 2010 passed by the Learned Single Judge in CWJC No. 13196 of 2009 is set aside. CWJC No. 13196 is dismissed.”
Heard the Learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel appearing for the respondents and perused the materials available on record.
In view of the legal principles laid down in the judgments relied upon by the respondents, this Court is of the considered opinion that once the eligibility criteria and standards are prescribed in the advertisement, the Corporation is required to adhere to the same strictly and uniformly. Any deviation or relaxation in the prescribed criteria would result in an arbitrary and subjective approach, which cannot be sustained in law.
In the present case, the petitioner was declared successful in the draw of lots; however, such selection was subject to fulfilment of the eligibility conditions and successful Field Verification of Credentials (FVC). During the course of FVC, it was found that the land offered by the petitioner for the showroom, did not fall within the advertised location. Further, the petitioner herself submitted a letter dated 28.02.2018 stating that she did not possess land within the location of Bounsi either in her own name or in the name of her family members. Thus, the petitioner failed to satisfy the eligibility criteria prescribed under the Unified Guidelines for Selection of LPG Distributorship.
The respondent Corporation, therefore, was justified in rejecting the candidature of the petitioner on the basis of the findings recorded during the Field Verification and in accordance with the terms and conditions of the advertisement. The petitioner, having failed to fulfil the prescribed eligibility requirements, cannot claim any enforceable right merely on the basis of being declared successful, in the draw of lots.
This Court finds no illegality, arbitrariness or infirmity in the decision of the respondents in issuing the impugned rejection letter dated 03.10.2018 (Annexure-1). The action of the respondent Corporation, is in conformity with the advertisement and the applicable selection guidelines.
In view of the above discussion, the Writ petition is liable to be dismissed, as it is devoid of merits.
In the result, the Writ petition stands dismissed.
Interlocutory Application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.