Allahabad High Court
Sanjay Singh vs Union Of India Thru Secy. And ... on 3 December, 2013
Bench: Arun Tandon, Anjani Kumar Mishra
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 10
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 28821 of 2012
Petitioner :- Sanjay Singh
Respondent :- Union Of India Thru Secy. And Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Mahesh Narain Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,A.S.G.I.(2012/3627),Prakash Padia,Ramesh Upadhyay
Hon'ble Arun Tandon,J.
Hon'ble Anjani Kumar Mishra,J.
Heard Sri Mahesh Narain Singh on behalf of the petitioner and Sri Prakash Padia on behalf of the respondents.
Petitioner had approached this Court earlier by means of the writ petition No. 70163 of 2010 complaining the awarding of zero marks to the petitioner under the criterion of "capability to provide infrastructure and facility", under the heading "other assets like movable and immovable property" and under the parameter of "other sources of income".
It was the case of the petitioner that because of the wrong marks awarded under the aforesaid criterion, the petitioner has been placed with serial no. 2 and therefore the entire select panel was challenged. The writ petition was disposed of by order dated 3.12.2010 requiring the General Manager of Indian Oil Corporation to examine the grievance of the petitioner in a time bound manner. The General Manager, Indian Oil Corporation under the order dated 30.12.2011 has examined the grievance of the petitioner point-wise and has not found any substance therein to interfere with the selections held.
So far as the issue of the marks awarded under the parameters of capability to provide the land and infrastructure facility is concerned, the General Manager has recorded that the petitioner in order to establish his title over the land offered for the dealership has produced the registered lease -deed for a period of 30 years in respect of land covered by Khasra No. 453/0.212 hectare and Khasra No. 954/0.21 hectare with Khatauni No. 190/190 CH-18. This lease deed which was duly registered was signed by only four persons, namely, Baij Nath Singh, Jitendra Kumar, Narendra Singh and Surendra Kumar Singh. However, it was found that although the lease-deed contained the name of Daya Shankar but he had not signed the same and, further that there had no partition by metes and bounds between the co-holders qua the property in question. The petitioner in order to fill in the lacunae introduced the affidavit of Daya Shankar to the affect that he had no objection with regard to the establishment of the dealership by the petitioner over the land. But this no objection affidavit cannot cure the defects in the lease deed. It is no doubt true that every joint holder has a right to lease out his share in the undivided property but it is not the fact of the case. What was set up by the petitioner was a lease executed by all the five lease holders who were the joint holders and it was found on verification that one of them had not signed the lease so executed. The Indian Oil Corporation appears to be justified in treating the lease deed to be incomplete for want of signatures of the fifth joint holder. Similarly we find that the petitioner had produced the certificate of the Sub Divisional Magistrate in respect of the value of the immovable properties when the brochure the valuation of the property was to be submitted with reference to the certificate issued by the Government approved valuer. The Corporation therefore appears to be justified is not awarding marks under the same also.
So far as the third ground i.e. with regard to the other process of income is concerned even if we accept that there is some error in the order impugned and we direct grant of full marks under the said criteria i.e. four marks, the same shall not effect the final outcome as the difference between the total marks awarded to the petitioner and the respondent no. 5 is 38.
In the totality of the circumstances, we find no good ground to entertain the petition.
The writ petition is dismissed.
Order Date :- 3.12.2013
Priyanka
