Smt. Anita Choudhary vs The Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited and Others

Govind Mathur, J.—The Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited invited applications from the eligible aspirants for grant of retail outlet for the location "Kaparda" or within 5 kms. from Kaparda in either side on National Highway No. 112, Jodhpur.

The petitioner considering herself eligible for grant of retail outlet submitted an application with the required documents. One Mr. Mahendra Singh, respondent No. 3, also submitted an application and that was considered by the competent authority of the Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited alongwith the application submitted by the petitioner. After assessing eligibility and other merits for grant of retail outlet, the respondents awarded 89.55 merit marks to the petitioner, and 84.02 merit marks to the respondent No. 3. Being aggrieved by the same, the respondents No. 3 submitted a representation to the competent authority pointing out certain errors and defaults in the particulars forwarded by the petitioner.

After considering the representation submitted by the respondent No. 3, the competent authority re-determined the merit marks and awarded 84.55 marks to the petitioner and 84.02 marks to the respondent No. 3. The respondent No. 3 being dissatisfied with the re-assessment of the merit marks, re-agitated his cause by submitting a complaint and that was again considered by the competent authority. The competent authority on examination of the record arrived at the conclusion that the valuation of the property that was shown by the applicant as her assets was not made by a Government approved valuer. It was also noticed that the income of the husband of the petitioner, that was clubbed with the income of the petitioner, was not supported by the affidavit sworn in by her husband. On basis of the defaults aforesaid, the respondents re-determined merit and awarded 83.05 marks to the petitioner and the marks earlier awarded to respondent No. 3 Mr. Mahendra Singh being 84.02 were maintained.

Being aggrieved by re-determination of the merit marks by the competent authority of the respondent Corporation, this petition for writ is preferred.

The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that as per para 19(b) of the procedure for selection of petrol/diesel retail outlet dealers notified on 15.09.2008, the competent authority should have made investigation on the complaint by providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and also by passing a speaking order, whereas in the instant matter, neither the opportunity of hearing is afforded nor any order containing adequate reasons has been passed.

Per contra, the stand of the respondents is that the procedure applicable in quite unambiguous terms provides that in the case the land/finance is owned by the applicant or members of "family unit" or jointly with third person, a consent letter on stamp paper or an affidavit or power of attorney of such third person is required to qualify for the marks. It is further pointed out that the petitioner did not get her documents duly certified by the Government approved valuer in support of assets.

A rejoinder to the reply filed on behalf of the respondents is also available on record. The petitioner has accepted that the valuation of her property was not made by a Government approved valuer and also that the details pertaining to the income of her husband were also not supported by an affidavit sworn in by her husband. However, as per the petitioner, these requirements are not mandatory and could have been cured in the event of grant of an opportunity. It is also urged that the respondents did not examine the entire case objectively, thus, complete reasons too are not given. It is also submitted that as per Annex. R/1/1, 1.5 marks have been awarded to the petitioner against her income, though earlier no mark was awarded under this head and this fact indicates casual approach of working. Much emphasis is given by learned counsel for the petitioner to the fact that the procedure prescribed nowhere entails the respondent Corporation for holding enquiry twice, but in the instant matter, the same has been made repeatedly just to extend benefit to the respondent No. 3.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and also considered the rival submissions.

The main submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner are:

The respondents could have taken action against the petitioner only after affording an opportunity of hearing to her, but in the instant matter, no such opportunity was given. The respondents also did not pass any speaking order while reducing the merit marks of the petitioner; and

The procedure applicable nowhere provides for holding 2 or repeated enquiries on a complaint, therefore, the second enquiry made by the respondent Corporation is without jurisdiction.

True it is, clause 19(b) of the procedure applicable provides for extending an opportunity of hearing to the affected person and that has not been given in the instant matter. However, looking to the admission of the petitioner that the valuation of her property/assets was not made by a Government approved valuer as required and further that the income of her husband was also not supported by his affidavit/power of attorney and that too was not on stamp paper, I am of the view that even in the event of grant of opportunity of hearing, the petitioner would have not satisfied the competent authority with regard to the defaults existing. The principles of natural justice are like golden thread in administrative jurisprudence and that should always be adhered, however, in the case in hand, the default is accepted and therefore, even after providing opportunity of hearing the only conclusion that would have been arrived is the default existing resulting into only reduction of marks earlier awarded. In such circumstances, the failure to adhere the procedure given in para 19(b) of the procedure applicable is not fatal.

The other allegation of the petitioner that the respondents at one instance did not award any mark to the petitioner and subsequently granted 1.5 marks, discloses their casual approach of working, is also not tenable. 1.5 marks have been awarded to the petitioner against her own income excluding the income of her husband. This part was not taken into consideration earlier and therefore, the respondents just rectified their error and that is not sufficient to term the entire process as casual.

For the reasons given above, I do not find any merit in this petition for writ. Accordingly, the same is dismissed.