Sri. Suresha D vs The Chief Area Manager Indian Oil Corporation Ltd

The petitioner is before this Court assailing the order dated 29.11.2013 at Annexure-H to the petition. The petitioner is also seeking that the contention in Para 6 (h) (iii) of the brochure for selection of distributor under the Rajiv Gandhi Gramin LPG Vitarak (hereinafter referred to as "RGGLV") be quashed. In that light, the petitioner is seeking that the distributorship of Kirangur, Mandya District under S.C. category be allowed in his favour.

The petitioner had responded to the notification issued by the respondent calling for applications to appoint the distributors under the RGGLV (scheme). One of the requirements under the notification as also the regulations is that the plot of land measuring 21m X 26m owned by the applicant was to be provided so as to locate the godown and show room. The petitioner in his application had provided details of the property to which reference is available under the document dated 22.06.2013 (Annexure-E to the petition). The same is styled as a "mortgage deed", which in effect is a lease obtained by the petitioner. The details of the same was furnished in the application.

Insofar as the other criteria, the petitioner had satisfied the required conditions. The case of the petitioner was considered and in the lottery, the petitioner was chosen. However, on carrying out field verification, which includes the verification of the documents and the documents furnished thereto, the respondent rejected the candidature of the petitioner and forfeited the deposit of Rs.20,000/-, which was made by the petitioner through the communication dated 29.11.2013. The petitioner therefore claiming to be aggrieved is before this Court in this petition.

The respondent has filed the objection statement seeking to sustain their action.

The Clause 6 (h) (iii), which is assailed herein is also referred and a justification is provided for contending that such clause in the regulations as well as the advertisements is to be complied. Insofar as the action against the petitioner, it is contended that the requirements has not been satisfied and admittedly no documents to indicate that the petitioner owns the plot as provided in the regulations is produced and in that view, it is contended that the rejection is justified.

In the above background, I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for the respondent and perused the petition papers.

Insofar as the challenge made to the requirement in regulation 6 (h) (iii) of the brochure, though learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the same is discriminatory in as much as such provision to own the plot is imposed only on the applicants under the RGGLV scheme and not in respect of the other distributors from whom the application is invited, I am of the opinion that such contention cannot be entertained by this Court in the instant petition since the petitioner cannot approbate and reprobate. The petitioner knowing the requirements and the conditions has applied for RGGLV distributorship and having participated in the process cannot at this juncture raise such contentions. Accordingly, the contention in that regard is rejected.

The issue however which arise for consideration herein is as to whether the respondent in the present facts and circumstances were justified in rejecting the case of the petitioner at the stage at which it was done and in that circumstance whether any other consideration is required in the instant petition? To that effect, the clause as contained in the regulations and as had been notified would no doubt refer to the requirement of providing details relating to the plot of land, which is owned by the family unit of the petitioner. In the instant case, the document for ownership had no doubt not been produced. However, the document to indicate the land having been procured on long lease of sixteen years had been furnished.

Though learned counsel for the respondent has referred to the clause as contained and also the indication in the application that the applicants are required to take note of the requirements as contained in the notification is referred to, what is necessary to be taken note, is that in the very application as filed by the petitioner, the petitioner had indicated details with regard to the lease deed. If the clause as contained in the regulations was to be operated against the petitioner, it would have been open for the respondent at that stage itself to reject the application. However, the respondent in the instant facts has accepted the application, processed further and also called upon the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs.20,000/- towards the field verification charges, which in any event is required to be paid by the petitioner. Thereafter, the application has been rejected through the impugned communication and the said sum of Rs.20,000/- is forfeited.

In a matter of present nature, when the petitioner had disclosed the status of the plot, produced the document and the respondent had accepted the application, taken note of the documents and allowed the petitioner to participate in the process by drawing out the name through lottery wherein the petitioner's name had arisen for consideration, even at that stage, taking note of the long lease, the respondent ought to have provided an opportunity to the petitioner to provide a suitable land. In fact, the petitioner had at that stage on being informed that the document produced by the petitioner is not acceptable has also offered to purchase the property in the locality for further consideration pursuant to the lottery having been concluded. In the circumstances, where the petitioner had indicated the details and had not withheld any information from the respondent and in that circumstance, when a consideration was made after securing the deposit from the petitioner, an opportunity in the present facts and circumstances ought to have been granted to the petitioner. Since the same has not been done, an opportunity requires to be granted to the petitioner to provide the ownership plot since this Court at the first instance has granted interim order and the appointment of the distributor to the location concerned under the RGGLV scheme has not been completed and no other person would be prejudiced.

Hence, in order to provide an opportunity to the petitioner in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the order dated 29.11.2013 impugned at Annexure-H is quashed. The petitioner is granted three months time to produce necessary documents to indicate ownership over the plot for the distributorship to the location concerned. If such document is produced by the petitioner within three months as permitted by the Court, the respondent shall proceed further in accordance with law to complete the process with regard to the appointment of LPG distributorship for RGGLV location at Kirangur, Mandya District. It is made clear that if the petitioner does not provide the alternate documents within three months, the respondent would thereafter be entitled to re-notify the location and proceed further in accordance with law.

The petition is accordingly disposed of.