Rajeev Kumar vs I.O.C.L. And 2 Others
2015 Latest Caselaw 2195 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

A.F.R.
 
Court No. - 9
 

 
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 50774 of 2015
 
Petitioner :- Rajeev Kumar
 
Respondent :- I.O.C.L. And 2 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Bhoopendra Nath Singh, Devendra
 
 				      Pratap Singh
 
Counsel for Respondent :- Prakash Padia
 

 
Hon. Arun Tandon, J.

Hon. Shashi Kant, J.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

Application has been invited by the Indian Oil Corporation in the matter of grant of dealership under the Rajiv Gandhi Gramin L.P.G. Vitarak Yojna in respect of village Pali Khurd, Pali Kala, Tehsil Bharthana, District Etawa. Petitioner in response to the said advertisement submitted his application. He was selected by draw of lots for the purpose of awarding of the dealership.

On actual verification of the site offered for godown by the petitioner it was found that it does not have motorable approach road or private road owned by the petitioner connecting to the public road. Therefore, it has been held that the petitioner does not satisfy one of the essential requirements of the advertisement and accordingly he has been declared unfit for the grant of dealership. Hence this petition.

Sri B.N. Singh, counsel for the petitioner challenges the very foundation of the order, namely, the applicant should have been the owner of the connecting road from the godown to the public way, inasmuch as according to him such was not the condition in the brochure provided and for the purpose he has referred to clause 4(g) enclosed at page 26 of the paper book, which reads as follows:

"4(g). own a suitable land (plot) of minimum 20 metre x 24 metre in dimension at the advertised RGGLV location for construction of LPG cylinder Storage Godown.

Own means having clear ownership title of the property in the name of applicant/family member of the 'Family Unit' as defined in multiple dealership/distributorship norm. In case of ownership/co-ownership by family member, consent letter from the family member will be required.

Land for construction of Godown will be considered suitable, if it is freely accessible through all weather motorable approach road (public road or private road of the applicant connecting to the public road) and should be plain, in one contiguous plot free from live overhead power transmission or telephone lines Pipelines/Canals/Drainage/ Nallahs should not be passing through the plot."

In the alternative it is stated that now under the direction of the officers of the Indian Oil Corporation the petitioner has purchased the land for the purposes of construction of the approach road from godown to the public way. Therefore, the defect, if any, in that regard stands cured. It is, therefore, submitted that the corporation has not acted fairly while refusing to allot the dealership to the petitioner.

Sri Prakash Padia on the contrary points out that the clause as exactly applicable is mentioned in the brochure for selection of dealer under the Rajiv Gandhi Gramin L.P.G. Vitarak Yojana enforced from April, 2013 and according to the corporation the clause is also one and the same, which is mentioned in the application form which has been filed by the petitioner himself while seeking consideration of his candidature. Reference is made in that regard to page 37 of the paper book, which is the part of the application form submitted by the petitioner.

In view of the conflict, qua the conditions mentioned in the brochure, between the parties, we may rely upon the clause 9 as is contained in the application form submitted by the petitioner himself duly signed, which reads as follows:

Details of .....

or

Already.......

The plot of land or ready LPG cylinder storage godown should be freely accessible through all weather motorable approach road (public road or private road connecting to the public road). In case of private road connecting to the public road, the same should belong to the applicant/member(s) of family as per the ownership criteria defined in the advertisement under item No. 3(h)(iii). The land should be plain in one contiguous plot free from live overhead power transmission or telephone lines. Canals/Drainage/Nallahs should not be passing through the plot. The land for construction of LPG godown/LPG Godown should also meet the norms of various statutory bodies such as PWD/Highway authorities/Town and Country Planning Department etc.

Documents.........

The Date.......

In case land is in the name of member of 'Family Unit'/Parents/Grandparents (both maternal & paternal) of the applicant, consent from such family members in the form of a Notarized Affidavit (Appendix B) is required to be attached with the application.

In case land is jointly owned by the applicant/member of the Family Unit/Parents/Grandparents of the applicant with any other person(s) and the share of the land in the name of the applicant/member of the Family Unit/Parents/Grandparents of the applicant meets the requirement of land for godown then an NOC from the joint owner(s) is to be provided as per Appendix-I.

It is an admitted position that the last date for submission of the application was 12th of October, 2013 and therefore all the essential qualifications in terms of the advertisement and in terms of the conditions of the application form had to be satisfied prior to that date.

It is admitted on record that the petitioner has got the sale deed of the land, which is to be now used for the purposes of construction of approach road between the godown and the public way, executed on 08th December, 2014 i.e. after more than one year and two months of the last date of the submission of the application.

We have no hesitation to record that any person, who was not possessed of the land to be used for construction of the approach road between the godown and the public way in terms of the conditions of the advertisement and the application form referred to above, would be ineligible for grant of dealership, inasmuch as if any relaxation is to be provided that should be given to all other persons similarly situate so that they may also have an opportunity to seek consideration of the claim after such relaxation, which is not the intention of the scheme, as quoted above.

Counsel for the petitioner placed reliance upon the Division Bench judgment of this Court in the Case of Smt. Mamta Goswami vs. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited (PBCL) and another, reported in 2015(3) ADJ 308.

The judgment, in our opinion, is clearly distinguishable in the facts of the present case.

Counsel for the Indian Oil Corporation has relied upon the Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Avinash Kumar vs. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited and another, reported in 2012(1) EFR 147, which in our opinion more akin to the facts of the present case.

However, the order passed by us today shall not affect the last direction contained in the order impugned to the effect that the order shall be subject to the final modalities to be worked out and the petitioner will be guided accordingly.

In view of the aforesaid writ petition is dismissed.

Dt/-08.09.2015

Pkb/50774-15