Allahabad High Court
Santosh Singh vs Indian Oil Corp.Ltd.Thru.Deputy ... on 18 June, 2021
Bench: Rajan Roy, Saurabh Lavania
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 2
Case :- MISC. BENCH No. - 12193 of 2021
Petitioner :- Santosh Singh
Respondent :- Indian Oil Corp.Ltd.Thru.Deputy General Manager & Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Shishir Chandra
Counsel for Respondent :- Manish Jauhari
Hon'ble Rajan Roy,J.
Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Manish Jauhari, learned counsel for Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. and Sri Virendra Mishra, learned counsel for the private opposite party.
The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging an order dated 02.06.2021 passed by the Divisional Retail Head of Indian Oil Corporation, Bareilly Divisional Office, Bareilly as contained in Annexure No. 1, by which a complaint of the petitioner against selection of opposite party No. 3 for grant of petrol outlet dealership for location Village- Kothiya, Pargana- Shrinagar, Tehsil- Lakhimpur of District- Kheri has been rejected.
The contention of counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner was one of the participants having ownership of requisite land based on a registered sale-deed. The opposite party No. 3 has a lease in his favour but the title of the person, who has executed the lease, is disputed, therefore, the opposite party No. 3 was not qualified for selection, yet he has been selected in the lottery system.
On being asked, counsel for the petitioner could not show any condition in the guidelines or brochure/advertisement, which may have been issued by the official opposite parties as to what would be the position, if the title is disputed and how it would be ascertained as to whether it is disputed or not and who would record a satisfaction in this regard.
Nevertheless, when we consider the contents of the impugned order, we find firstly that the opposite party No. 3 had applied in Group 1 category as he was having a registered lease-deed for 19 years and 11 months in his favour. Such lease qualifies his candidature for consideration in Group 1 as per para 4 clause (V) note 1 (d) of the brochure of selection of dealers for regular and rural retail outlets dated 24.11.2018. Thereafter, the impugned order goes on to consider the allegation of title dispute raised by the petitioner and it says that the mutation of the land in question was done in favour of Sri Avadh Ram in pursuance of a registered sale-deed dated 10.08.2015 by the Tehsildar vide his order dated 20th September, 2018. Thereafter, some proceeding was undertaken by certain persons challenging the said mutation in the Court of Tehsildar itself, who, vide his ex-parte order dated 10.02.2021, stayed the mutation order dated 20th September, 2018. This stay order was challenged by Sri Avadh Ram by filing a Revision before the Board of Revenue but it did not find favour with the Board.
Being further aggrieved, Sri Avadh Ram filed a Misc. Case bearing No. 1593 of 2021 (Avadh Ram v. Board of Revenue Lucknow and others) before the Allahabad High Court at Lucknow and the High Court vide its order dated 21.01.2021 stayed the said order dated 20th September, 2018 passed by Naib Tehsildar as also the order passed by Board of Revenue. The said writ petition is still pending.
From the recitals contained in the impugned order, the official opposite parties, who have invited the applications for grant of retail outlet, appear to be satisfied that the dispute is not such that would come in the way of opposite party No. 3 in being granted the retail outlet. The order further goes on to say that there are various judgments of the Allahabad High Court that installation of a dealership/KSK is a part of an agricultural activity. For all these reasons, the complaint has been rejected.
We are of the opinion that if the opposite parties are satisfied as to the land being offered by the opposite party No. 3 for setting up a petrol pump as of now then this is not a stage where this Court should interfere in the matter. Moreover, the counsel for the official opposite parties informs that letter of intent has not been issued as yet only the complaint of the petitioner has been rejected.
At this stage, Sri Manish Jauhari, learned counsel for Indian Oil Corporation says that if any letter of intent is issued to opposite party No. 3, it would be a conditional one.
For the reasons mentioned in the impugned order especially as the counsel for the petitioner has not been able to show any such mandatory condition in the brochure or in any Act or Rules where in a case involving such a dispute as is being alleged by the petitioner in this case, the Indian Oil Corporation could not in any circumstance select the opposite party No. 3, therefore, we dismiss this writ petition.
Order Date :- 18.6.2021
Arun/-
