HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH A.F.R. Court No. - 4 Case :- MISC. BENCH No. - 9688 of 2015 Petitioner :- Ramesh Chandra Mishra Respondent :- Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.Thru Sr.Div.Manager (Rs) & Ors. Counsel for Petitioner :- Shishir Chandra Counsel for Respondent :- Ratnesh Chandra Hon'ble Amreshwar Pratap Sahi,J.
Hon'ble Attau Rahman Masoodi,J.
Heard Sri Shishir Chandra, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri Ratnesh Chandra for all the respondents of the Indian Oil Corporation.
The petitioner was an applicant for Kisan Sewa Kendra dealership offered and advertised by the Indian Oil Corporation. The dispute in the present case is confined only to the cancellation of the empanelment of the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner had not submitted the consent of all the co-owners of the land in question as contained in the terms and conditions of the advertisement as well as the guidelines in this regard.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the said ground for rejection was not at all available inasmuch as the advertisement, copy whereof has been filed as Annexure 3, categorically indicates that the requirement was of offering an exclusive land, and if it was under a coownership then an affidavit to that effect giving no consent of the co-owners was required.
Learned counsel submits that the petitioner had offered the proposed site of 40 mts. x 30 mts. and this was the exclusive land being a portion of Plot No.96 about which his two brothers had given an affidavit of consent/no objection that had been enclosed along with the application form. There was no other requirement according to the learned counsel for the petitioner for moving of the said application and as such it was complete in all respects and did not suffer from any such deficiency as has been indicated in the impugned order. The affidavits filed by the brothers are that of Haresh Kumar Mishra and Dinesh Chandra Mishra.
The fact that the plot no.96 measuring 0.880 hect. was in the name of five co-tenure holders is undisputed. The said plot stands recorded in the names of five tenure holders and the status is that of Bhumidars with transferable rights. These facts are evident from the document relied upon by the petitioner himself as contained in Annexure 13 which is the report of the Revenue Inspector. The petitioner alongwith his two brothers named above and Ram Milan son of Gyan Dhari and Murati Devi wife of Tilak Dhari are the co-tenure holders. The said report also categorically records that there has been no division or partition of the said holding, which according to the statutory provisions is referable to Section 176 of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, 1950, and therefore all the five co-tenure holders were recorded against the entire plot no.96. It is thus an admitted position on record that only two of the brothers of the petitioner who were the recorded co-tenure holders only had given their affidavits, whereas the other two co-tenure holders Ram Milan and Murati Devi had not submitted any such affidavit nor was it enclosed along with the application form. It is on the strength of such documents that the petitioner's candidature was considered and the empanelment of the petitioner was rejected. The subsequent filing of affidavits by the other tenure holders has not been accepted by the Corporation being not permissible under the applicable terms.
Learned counsel for the respondents-Oil Corporation submits that after the field survey a report was obtained and it was found that the petitioner's application form was deficient as it was not accompanied by the affidavits of all the co-tenure holders and consequently the application was incompetent and as such the authority has not committed any error in rejecting the empanelment of the petitioner who for the said reason was incapable of being considered.
The facts that emerge also indicate that the advertisement clearly requires the offering of the land alongwith the affidavits of all the co-owners. There is no provision nor it could be shown that such affidavits could be accepted at a belated stage, as in the present case where the consent letters appear to have been tendered on 23.8.2014.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the terms of the advertisement uses the word 'co-owners' and not 'co-tenure holders'. The said argument has to be noted only for being rejected inasmuch as the learned counsel does not appear to be aware of the provisions of the 1950 Act which does not envisage any such co-ownership in respect of such land inasmuch as under the 1950 Act the State is the owner of every inch of land and tenure holders are tenants or co-tenure holders as prescribed therein. This classification of tenureship, even though of practically a permanent nature and amenable to compensation on acquisition, is subject to state ownership. Bhumidhars also have the right to utilize their land subject to statutory control as envisaged under Section 142 of the 1950 Act read with the restrictions under Sections 143 and 144 thereof. It is something different that the co-tenureship in agricultural land in the above context is being construed by the Corporation as a substitute for co-ownership and is almost a term used synonymously in order to accept such land as a site for the dealership. The use of the term co-owner in the brochure is therefore to be understood accordingly. Thus, this argument does not hold water.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that there was neither any misrepresentation on the part of the petitioner nor was there any concealment so as to dis-entitle him to be considered as a valid applicant and if there was any discrepancy his application could have been rejected at the very outset. We are unable to agree with the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner as the advertisement as well as the guidelines clearly provide that the finalization of the candidature is subject to verification of all such documents which may be required to fulfil the eligibility condition. The said argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner also therefore cannot be countenanced.
Now coming to the question of the issue of the land offered by the petitioner, it is undisputed that two of the co-tenure holders gave their affidavits almost four years after the moving of the application. Learned counsel submits that this was done on the asking of the Oil Corporation and therefore the applicant cannot be blamed for not having given any such affidavit earlier as there was no such requirement in the terms and conditions of the advertisement. This argument also has to be rejected on the ground that the condition no.7(Ka-3) clearly envisages the offering of such documents.
7 ¼d&3½ vkosnu i= ds lkFk layXu fd;s tkus okys Hkw[k.M ds nLrkostksa esa [[email protected][krkSuh ¼vFkok led{k½ Hkh 'kkfey gSa] ftlls vkosnd dk LokfeRo fl) gksrk gksA ;fn vkosnd izLrkfor Hkw[k.M dk ,d ek= Lokeh ugh gS rks mls lHkh lg&Lokfe;ksa dh lgefr 'kiFki= ds :i esa layXu djuh gksxhA We have also gone through the guidelines which has been placed before us and Clause 10 thereof in respect of application form is extracted hereinunder :-
"10. APPLICATION FORM :
Application form for dealership is a part of the advertisement published in the newspapers. The application format can also be downloaded from our website www.iocl.com or brochure containing application form can be purchased from our Divisional Office.
a) The application can be submitted on plain paper in the prescribed format as mentioned above.
b) Application Fee: (non refundable) - Rs.100/- (Rs.50/- in respect of SC/ST candidates).
c) in case of partnership, each partner will have to submit separate application forms along with separate application fee as applicable. However, while submitting the filled forms their application forms has to be attached together.
d) Filled application along with relevant enclosures complete in all respects should be submitted so as to reach the office address mentioned in the advertisement for a location before the due date and time.
e) Originals of the Affidavits and self attested copies of the other supporting documents should be submitted along with the completed application form, duly signed.
f) The applicant should affix his/her recent photographs in the space provided for in the application form.
g) No addition/deletion/alteration will be permitted in the application once it is submitted.
h) No additional documents whatsoever will be accepted or considered after the cut off date of the application.
i) Applications received after the cut-off date for any reason including postal delay, and those without accompanying valid documents like Affidavits, Certificates etc., application fee or incomplete in any respect will not be considered and no correspondence will be entertained by IOCL in such cases whatsoever.
j) The applications received are scrutinised after the cut off date for receiving the applications as given in the advertisement. In case of applications rejected at the time of scrutiny, the concerned applicant will be advised the reasons for rejection in writing and such applicants will not be called for interviews.
k) If any statement made in the application or in the document enclosed therewith by the candidate at any stage is found to be incorrect or false and/or the applicant conceals any information, which if declared, would have made him/her ineligible for dealership, the application is liable to be rejected without assigning any reason and in case the applicant has been appointed as a dealer, the dealership is liable to be terminated. In such cases the candidate/dealer shall have no claim whatsoever against IOCL.
l) A person selected for dealership after issuance of letter of appointment will have to execute a dealership agreement with IOCL as per its terms.
m) Copy of Residence certificate to be enclosed."
Condition no.10 (d),(e),(g) and (h) extracted hereinabove read together leave no room for doubt that any additional document whatsoever cannot be accepted or considered after the cut off date of the application. In the aforesaid circumstances submission of any subsequent affidavits does not improve the case of the petitioner. Any communication entertained by the officials contrary to the said rules cannot improve upon the claim of the petitioner as he cannot expect legitimately anything which is contrary to the terms and conditions quoted above. Any deviation or bending of the said conditions would violate Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The impugned order, therefore, does not suffer from any such infirmity so as to warrant exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
For the aforementioned reasons, this writ petition is dismissed.
Order Date :- 14.10.2015 Anand Sri./-