AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The petitioner has filed the instant application for the following reliefs:
“For giving order or direction to the Respondents to allot the award of R.O. (Retail outlet) dealership at within 2 K.M. from Sobhan "O" mile toward Simari on RHS on NH-57 District Darbhanga under open category advertised on 25th November 2018 since petitioner is fulfilling all the criteria as made in guideline of the Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited and he has also offered the alternate suitable land measuring 40x45 meters of khata no. 133(Old), 34( new), Khesra no. 515 (old), 489 (new) and Khata no. 133(old), 94(New), Khesra no. 515, 213 (Old), 516 (new) and further for quashing letter dated 03.05.2022 issue dby Respondent authorities whereby his candidature has been rejected.”
The brief facts culled out of the Writ petition are that Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited (hereinafter referred to as “HPCL”) issued an advertisement dated 20.11.2018 for award of Retail Outlet Dealership at a location within 2 K.M. from Shobhan “O” Mile towards Simari on RSH/N.H.-57, District-Darbhanga, under the open category. The petitioner applied for the said dealership and was declared selected, as communicated to him vide letter dated 22.12.2020, there being only one eligible candidate and, consequently, no draw of lots being required.
Thereafter, the land offered by the petitioner was inspected by the Land Evaluation Committee on 19.02.2021 and was found unsuitable on the ground of deficiency in dimensions. The petitioner was consequently permitted to offer an alternative suitable land. In compliance thereof, the petitioner offered alternative land measuring "40 x 45" metres by submitting lease deeds dated 10.04.2021 along with the requisite documents.
The alternative land was thereafter evaluated by the respondents and, vide communication dated 03.05.2022, the petitioner was informed that the land was not suitable on the ground that it did not have the requisite frontage as advertised and his candidature was accordingly rejected. The petitioner contends that the rejection is wholly illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the prescribed guidelines, particularly when the land had been measured by the concerned authorities and was found suitable. The petitioner further alleges that the rejection was made without proper enquiry and with a mala fide intention.
The Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had fulfilled all the eligibility conditions prescribed in the advertisement and, having initially been declared selected, was thereafter wrongly denied the dealership on an unjustifiable ground.
It is submitted that, pursuant to the permission granted by HPCL, the petitioner had offered alternative land measuring "40 x 45" metres and duly submitted the requisite lease deeds and other documents. The said land was subsequently measured and, according to the petitioner, was found suitable by the concerned Amin as well as the local authorities. Despite the same, the respondents, without conducting a proper and fair enquiry, rejected the petitioner's candidature on the ground of inadequate frontage.
The Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the action of the respondents is arbitrary, unreasonable and contrary to the terms and conditions of the advertisement and the applicable guidelines. It is contended that the respondents have failed to properly appreciate the documents and measurements relating to the land offered by the petitioner and have mechanically rejected his candidature.
It is, therefore, submitted that the impugned decision rejecting the petitioner's candidature is unsustainable in law and is liable to be quashed, with a consequential direction to the respondents to reconsider the petitioner's candidature for award of the Retail Outlet Dealership in accordance with the applicable guidelines.
The Learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the petitioner was only provisionally selected for the Retail Outlet Dealership on the basis of the particulars furnished in his application and such selection was subject to fulfilment of all the terms and conditions of the advertisement and successful evaluation of the land offered by him by the competent Land Evaluation Committee.
The Learned counsel for the respondents submits that, upon inspection of the land, initially offered by the petitioner on 19.02.2021, the Land Evaluation Committee found that the said land did not conform to the prescribed norms, particularly with regard to its dimensions. Consequently, the petitioner was permitted to offer an alternative suitable land in the advertised location within the stipulated period. It is submitted that the petitioner thereafter offered an alternative piece of land measuring "40 x 45" metres, along with the requisite documents.
The Learned counsel for the respondents further submits that the alternative land offered by the petitioner was also evaluated by the competent Land Evaluation Committee and was found not suitable for the advertised Retail Outlet, as the land did not have the requisite frontage as prescribed in the advertisement. Accordingly, the petitioner was informed vide communication dated 03.05.2022 that his candidature had not been found eligible for award of the Retail Outlet Dealership and he was also afforded an opportunity to submit a representation, if he had any grievance against the decision.
It is submitted that the petitioner cannot claim any vested or indefeasible right to award of the Retail Outlet Dealership merely because he was initially informed that he had been selected. The initial communication dated 22.12.2020 itself made the selection subject to compliance with the terms and conditions of the Corporation, and the final selection was necessarily dependent upon verification and evaluation of the land offered by the candidate in accordance with the advertisement and applicable guidelines.
The Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the subsequent measurement allegedly carried out by the Amin or any report relied upon by the petitioner cannot override the decision of the duly constituted Land Evaluation Committee, which evaluated the land with reference to the requirements prescribed by the Corporation for the particular advertised location. It is contended that the respondents are required to adhere strictly to the specifications contained in the advertisement and cannot relax or alter the prescribed criteria in favour of an individual candidate.
The Learned counsel for the respondents further submits that the allegation of mala fide or arbitrary action on the part of the respondent authorities is wholly misconceived and unsupported by any cogent material. The petitioner's candidature was rejected only after evaluation of the land offered by him and upon finding that the same did not satisfy the prescribed requirement regarding frontage. The decision, therefore, was taken strictly in accordance with the terms of the advertisement and the applicable guidelines.
It is further submitted that this Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, ought not to substitute its own assessment for that of the expert/competent committee in matters relating to technical evaluation of the land, offered for establishment of a Retail Outlet, particularly when the decision has been taken in accordance with the conditions prescribed in the advertisement.
The Learned counsel for the respondents further submits that the petitioner failed to establish any illegality, perversity, arbitrariness or violation of any statutory or constitutional right in the impugned decision rejecting his candidature, as such no interference can be warranted and prayed to dismiss the Writ petition.
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 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. This Court finds that the initial selection of the petitioner was subject to fulfilment of the terms and conditions of the advertisement and successful evaluation of the land offered by him. The land initially offered by the petitioner was found unsuitable by the Land Evaluation Committee and, thereafter, the alternative land offered by him was also found deficient in the requisite frontage as prescribed under the advertisement. The petitioner was accordingly informed of the rejection of his candidature and was also afforded an opportunity to submit his representation.
This Court finds no illegality, arbitrariness or infirmity in the decision of the respondents in issuing the impugned rejection letter dated 03.05.2022 (Annexure-9). The action of the respondent Corporation is in conformity with the terms and conditions of the advertisement and the applicable selection guidelines.
In view of the above discussion, the Writ petition stands dismissed as it is devoid of merits.
Interlocutory Application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.