Sachin Sharma vs Union of India and others

The Hon''ble Single Bench of this Court while pronouncing its verdict upon Civil Writ Petition No. 1049 of 2005, proceeded to set aside the empanelment of respondent No.4/appellant herein by respondents No.1 to 3, for allotment of a retail outlet at Village Ladror, District Hamirpur, H.P., besides it ordered qua the name of respondent No.4/appellant being struck off, from serial No.1 of the list of empaneled candidates. In sequel, the Hon''ble Single Judge of this Court had directed respondent No.2 to issue letter(s) of intent vis-a-vis the petitioner/respondent No.4 herein.

On standing aggrieved, the appellant herein proceeded to institute Civil Review Petition No. 33 of 2007 before the Hon''ble Single Judge of this Court, review petition whereof, stood dismissed for want of any error apparent on the face of the record. Consequently, the appellant/respondent No.4 has proceeded to institute the instant Letters Patent Appeal before this Court, whereupon, he seeks a direction qua the judgment pronounced by the Hon''ble Single Bench of this Court in CWP No. 1049 of 2005 being quashed and set aside.

A perusal of the pleadings constituted by the writ petitioner/respondent No.4 herein, in CWP No. 1049 of 2005, unfolds qua the writ petitioner assailing the occurrence of name of respondent No.4/appellant herein at the apex of the apposite empaneled list, list whereof stood prepared by the Selection Committee concerned, for allotment of a retail outlet, on anvil of his not satiating the relevant criteria for, hence, his aspiration warranting vindication, relevant criteria whereof prescribed in clause 16.1.1, stands displayed in Annexure P-1 and ad verbatim reproduced hereinafter, specifically qua the land afforded by respondent No.4/appellant, for the relevant purpose standing located in village Khutrin and not in village Ladror, whereas the plot afforded by the writ petitioner for the relevant purpose standing located in village Ladror, whereupon his claim warranting preference vis-a-vis the claim of respondent No.4/appellant for the relevant purpose. Clause 16.1.1. of Annexure P-1 reads as under:

"16.1.1 Each candidate (individuals and partners of partnership firm) during the interview will be assessed by the Selection Committee broadly under the following parameters:

a. Capability to provide land and infrastructure/facilities 35 marks.

b. Capability to provide finance 25 marks

c. Educational qualifications 15 marks

d. Capability to generate business 10 marks

e. Age 4 marks

f. Experience 4 marks

g. Business ability/acumen 5 marks

h. Personality 2 marks. "

The Hon''ble Single Judge of this Court had reproduced in his judgment, an order recorded on 28.11.2006 by the Hon''ble Division Bench of this Court, holding therewithin submissions addressed therebefore by the counsel for the allotter, qua the imperative necessity of the aspirant concerned holding a clear title qua the relevant land, whereas, respondent No.4/appellant holding a GPA with respect thereto, of one Ramesh Chand, whereupon, it prima facie concluded qua his thereupon being construable to not hold a clear title thereon, thereupon, the Hon''ble Division Bench of this Court construed the apposite allotment vis-a-vis the appellant to hence stand prima facie vitiated, constraining it, to admit CWP No. 1049 of 2005, order whereof of 28.11.2006 stands reproduced hereinafter:-

"Amongst other things it has been admitted by Mr. Rahul Mahajan appearing for respondents 2 and 3 that respondent No.4 was awarded 35 marks under the heading "land and infrastructure". It is seen that 35 marks are awardable only to such a candidate who himself has a clear title to the land or has a registered sale deed in his favour with respect thereto and is also willing to give on lease the said land to the Company on long term basis. It is admitted by Mr. Mahajan that respondent No.4 being a candidate did not show any document whereby he could be said to have had a clear title to the land offered by him or that he had a registered sale deed in his favour. Mr. Mahajan submits that respondent No.4 was holding a General Power of Attorney executed in his favour by the owner of the land and respondents 2 and 3 construed the said GPA as a clear title in his favour. Mr. Mahajan submits that GPA contains a stipulation entitling respondent No.4 to sell, lease, alienate and encumber the property....."

Wherefrom, the learned Single Judge concluded qua when aspirant''s ambition for obtaining allotment of the retail outlet, to hence fructify enjoining upon him to hold a clear title qua the land offered by him qua the respondent concerned, for the relevant purpose also the factum of holding a clear title thereon being an indispensable sine qua non, whereupon satiation of the tenet held in head (a) of Clause of 16.1.1 of Annexure P-1 would stand begotten, whereas, the appellant/respondent No.4 holding the General Power of Attorney qua the relevant land of one Ramesh Chand, thereupon, with the mandate of the order recorded by the Hon''ble Division Bench of this Court on 28.11.2006, hence, standing infringed, whereupon, the Hon''ble Single Judge concluded qua the apposite imperative norm(s) prescribed in Annexure P-1 standing concomitantly infracted also concluded qua the allotment of 35 marks vis-a-vis respondent No.4/appellant under head (a) i.e. "capability to provide land and infrastructure/facilities", being grossly unwarranted.

The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/respondent No.4 has contended before this Court qua the judgment, pronounced by the Hon''ble Single Judge of this Court, qua the allotment vis-a-vis the appellant herein, of 35 marks under head (a) of clause 16.1.1, of Annexure P-1, on the aspirant evincing evidence qua his capability to provide land or infrastructure/facilities, being grossly unwarranted necessitating interference, its emanating dehors any pleadings in respect thereto standing constituted in the writ petition. He, hence, concerts to seek reversal of the aforesaid conclusion(s) formed by the Hon''ble Single Judge of this Court. However, the aforesaid submission lacks strength, as an in depth perusal of the pleadings constituted in the writ petition unveil(s) qua his thereon assailing the empanelment, at the apex, by the Selection Committee concerned, of respondent No.4/appellant, for allotment of a retail outlet qua him, on anvil qua his not satisfying the relevant eligibility criteria held in Clause 16.1.1 of Annexure P-1. The Hon''ble Single Judge of this Court relied upon an order pronounced on 28.11.2006 by the Hon''ble Division Bench of this Court, relevant paragraph whereof stands extracted hereinabove, wherein the Hon''ble Division Bench of this Court reproduced the submission(s) made therebefore by the counsel appearing for the selection committee concerned qua the respondent No.4/appellant standing awarded 35 marks under the heading "land and infrastructure" and the aforesaid marks being awardable only qua a candidate who has a clear title qua the relevant land or who has a registered sale deed in his favour, whereas, the empaneled candidate herein for the reasons spelt therein not holding the enjoined clear title qua the land offered by him to respondents No.2 and 3, whereupon, the Hon''ble Division Bench of this Court recorded findings qua thereupon prima facie the selection for the relevant purpose of respondent No.4 standing prima facie evidently vitiated, constraining it hence to admit the petition. The aforesaid observations made on 28.11.2006 stood relied upon by the learned Single Judge of this Court, conspicuously with respondent No.4 evidently holding only a General Power of attorney qua the land offered by him to respondents No.2 and 3 for raising thereon the relevant infrastructure/facilities, thereupon, with his hence in tandem therewith not holding any clear title thereto, whereupon, the allotment of 35 marks qua him stood construed by him to stand rendered to be grossly unwarranted. The observations recorded on 28.11.2006 by the Hon''ble Division Bench of this Court, as stood relied upon by the learned Single Judge of this Court, did not throughout the pendency of CWP No. 1049 of 2005, come to be controverted by the counsel for the appellant/respondent No.4 nor any demonstrable material stood adduced subsequently by respondent No.4/appellant herein qua the subtle nuance or the import of the head (a) of Clause 16.1.1 of Annexure P-1 qua his capability to provide land for raising infrastructure/facilities, whereunder, 35 marks stood earmarked for allotment "not" being qua his holding a clear title thereto rather being his also holding a General Power of Attorney qua it from its owner, thereupon, his also falling within its innate signification besides its constituting sufficient compliance qua its mandate. In the absence of any address by the learned counsel for the appellant/respondent No.4 qua the facet aforesaid nor any tangible material standing adduced, for escaping besides diluting the rigor of the observations recorded by the Hon''ble Division Bench of this Court on 28.11.20016, observations whereof stood relied upon by the Hon''ble Single Bench of this Court, thereupon, inevitably a conclusion is constrained from this Court qua the counsel for the appellant/respondent No.1 acquiescing qua the validity of the aforesaid observations, whereupon, the appellant/respondent No.4 stands dis-entitled to receive any marks under the aforesaid head (a) of Clause 16.1.1 of Annexure P-1.

Be that as it may, the effect of the aforesaid conclusions recorded by this Court, is qua even if assumingly the marks allotted to the appellant stood increased from 25 to 35 under the relevant head (a) qua "the capability to provide land and infrastructure/facilities" also if the aforesaid increase occurred during the pendency of the writ petition, nonetheless, no capital can stand drawn therefrom by the appellant herein, as with his evidently for reasons aforestated not possessing a clear title qua the land offered by him to the respondents concerned, for theirs raising thereon the necessary infrastructure/facilities, whereupon, obviously, when he stood dis-entitled, to receive any marks from the Selection Committee concerned under the aforesaid head. In aftermath, any change or alteration or substitution in the marks allotted under the aforesaid head to the appellant/respondent No.4 by the selection committee concerned, would not detract from the efficacy of the pronouncement recorded by this Court in CWP No. 1049 of 2005, significantly, when it stands anvilled upon observations recorded on 28.11.2006 by the Hon''ble Division Bench of this Court, observations whereof reiteratedly throughout during the pendency of the writ petition remained undemonstrated by the counsel for the appellant to hold no any vigour, contrarily, with the counsel for the appellant herein not canvassing in the grounds of appeal constituted in the extant LPA qua the vigour of the observations recorded on 28.11.2006 by the Hon''ble Division Bench of this Court standing enfeebled nor his espousing herebefore qua reliance thereupon by the Hon''ble Single Judge of this Court being inapt, constrains an inference qua his acquiescing qua the tenacity of the aforesaid observations, thereupon with the appellant/respondent No.4 not holding a clear title qua the land afforded by him qua the respondent(s) concerned for raising infrastructure/facilities thereon, thereupon, he stood dis-entitled qua allotment of any marks besides any increase in marks from 25 to 35 being wholly irrelevant.

For the foregoing reasons, there is no merit in the instant appeal and it is dismissed accordingly. In sequel, the impugned judgment is affirmed and maintained. All pending applications also stand disposed of.