Aditya Vikram Yadav vs Union Of India And 2 Others
2024 Latest Caselaw 16961 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Aditya Vikram Yadav vs Union Of India And 2 Others on 14 May, 2024

Author: Vivek Kumar Birla

Bench: Vivek Kumar Birla

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


Reserved
 
A.F.R.
 
Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:86208-DB
 

 
Court No. - 29	
 
					
 
Case :- WRIT-C No. 10709 of 2024
 

 
Petitioner :- Aditya Vikram Yadav
 
Respondent:- Union Of India And 2 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner:- Ashish Rai, Pawan Giri, Rishabh Srivastava Counsel for Respondent:- A.S.G.I., Gaurav Kumar Chand, Santosh Kumar Singh
 

 
Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Birla, J.
 

Hon'ble Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi, J.

(Per: Hon'ble Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi,J.)

1. Heard Sri Pawan Giri along with Sri Rishabh Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner; Sri Gaurav Kant Chand, learned counsel appearing for the Union of India and Sri Puneet Agarwal, learned counsel for respondent nos. 2 and 3.

2. By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:

"I. Issue a writ, order, or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 01.03.2024 (Annexure no.1) passed by the respondent no.3, wherein the respondent no.3 has declared the Petitioner ineligible and also cancelled the candidature of the petitioner for the allotment of the Retail Outlet Dealerships Petrol Pump for the Territory-Deoria, District- Maharajganj, Location Description-FROM CHIUTAHA BAZAR CHURAHA UPTO 2KMS EITHER SIDE ON PARTWAL-NICHLAUL ROAD, with regard to the Appointment of Retail Outlet Dealerships in the State of Uttar Pradesh by Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. (BPCL).

II. Issue a writ, order, or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondent authorities to allot the Retail Outlet Dealerships Petrol Pump to the petitioner for the Territory- Deoria, District-Maharajganj, Location Description-FROM CHIUTAHA BAZAR CHURAHA UPTO 2KMS EITHER SIDE ON PARTWAL- NICHLAUL ROAD.

III. Issue a writ, order, or direction in the nature of Mandamus restraining the respondent no.3 from issuing fresh notification for conducting fresh draw of lots for the allotment of the Retail Outlet Dealerships Petrol Pump for the Territory-Deoria District-Maharajganj, Location Description-FROM CHIUTAНА BAZAR UPTO CHURAHA 2KMS EITHER SIDE ON PARTWAL-NICHLAUL ROAD, with regard to the Appointment of Retail Outlet Dealerships in the State of Uttar Pradesh by Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. (BPCL).

IV. Issue any other writ, order, or direction, which this Hon'ble Court may deem just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case; and

V. To award the cost of the Writ Petition in favour of the Petitioner."

3. Brief facts of the case that are relevant for the adjudication of the instant writ petition are that Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd ( (hereinafter referred to as BPCL) / respondent no. 2 issued an advertisement dated 28.06.2023 inviting applications for the appointment/award of Retail Outlet Dealership Petrol Pump for the Deoria, District Maharajganj, Location Description from Chiutahа Bazar, Churaha upto 2 kms, either side on Partwal-Nichlaul Road. The petitioner applied for the award of the said retail outlet dealership and received a confirmation of the same from BPCL / respondent no. 2 via E-mail dated 25.11.2023. The date for the draw of lots was fixed as 07.12.2023, in which, the petitioner participated. On the same day, the petitioner was informed via E-mail that he has been declared as provisionally selected for the award of Retail Outlet Dealership Petrol Pump. The petitioner was required to pay a sum of ₹30,000/- towards initial security deposit and to submit the set of documents as specified in the email for processing of his application for the aforesaid award of retail outlet dealership. Accordingly, the petitioner, made the aforementioned payment of ₹30,000/- and submitted the requisite documents.

4. Thereafter, the petitioner received another E-mail from BPCL-respondent no.2 to upload Khasra/Khatuani or any other equivalent document confirming the status of his ownership of the 'land' as on the date of application in respect of which the petitioner intends to open the Retail Outlet Dealership Petrol Pump, as on the date of application. However, on 17.12.2024, the petitioner received an E-mail from BPCL / respondent no. 3 through which he was informed that the documents uploaded by him were found 'NOT OK' as the lease of the 'land' is executed by only one of the co-owners of Khasra No. 110 which is not in consonance with the Clause 4 (vi) (a) of the 'Dealer Selection Guidelines 2023' and his candidature was found to be ineligible.

5. Aggrieved by the cancelation of his candidature, the petitioner approached the BPCL/respondent No. 3 and posted his representation through speed post and E-mail. However, vide E-mail/order dated 01.03.2024, his representation was rejected by the Territory Manager (Retail) BPCL, Gorakhpur /respondent no. 3 on the ground that as per the 'Dealer Selection Guidelines, 2023', it is necessary that all the co-sharers of the offered land must execute the lease in favour of the petitioner. As the petitioner does not have the lease from all the co-sharers of the offered land, his candidature is not acceptable.

6. Challenging the said order dated 01.03.2024, the learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the land bearing Plot/Gata No.110 situated at Mauza Agaya, Tehsil Nichlaul, District Maharajganj, belongs to one Pritihvi Pal Tiwari, who has leased the same out of his individual share. The portion of the land falling in the share of Prithvi Pal Tiwari is adjacent to petitioner's leased plot and in such scenario there was no need to obtain consent from the other co-sharers. It has further been argued that as the petitioner has submitted a valid lease deed along with the report by the revenue authority prepared in pursuance of the proceedings under section 116 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006. Therefore, there was no need of other co-sharer, who happen to be the brother of Prithvi Pal Tiwari, to execute lease of his share of land. Furthermore, the co-sharers have no objection with the present lease executed in favour of the petitioner.

7. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the BPCL vehemently opposed the writ petition and submitted that as per clause 4 (vi) (a) of the Brochure for 'Selection of Dealers for Regular and Rural Retail Outlets 2023', in the case of the petitioner, the lease deed should have been executed by all the co-owners of the offered plot. Since the lease deed produced by the petitioner was not executed by all the co-owners, his application has rightly been cancelled. He has further submitted that since the partition of the land in question is said to have taken place on 10.02.2024, which is subsequent to the date of submission of application, i.e. 28.06.2023; he was not found qualified for the allotment of Retail Outlet Dealership.

8. Having heard the submissions made by the learned counsels for the respective parties and perusing the material available on record, it would be apt to refer to Clause 4 (vi) (a) of the Brochure for 'Selection of Dealers for Regular and Rural Retail Outlets 2023'. The relevant portion of the same is extracted hereinbelow,

"......(vi) Land (Applicable to all categories):

The applicants would be classified into three groups as mentioned below based on the land offered or land not offered by them in the application form: -

Group 1: Applicants having suitable piece of land in the advertised location/area either by way of ownership / long term lease for a period of minimum 19 years 11 months or as advertised by the OMC.

Group - 2: Applicants having Firm Offer for a suitable piece of land for purchase or long-term lease for a period of minimum 19 years 11 months or as advertised by the OMC.

Group-3: Applicants who have not offered land in the application. Only applicable for locations advertised under SC/ST category.

Applications under Group - 3 would be processed/advised to offer land (Annexure - D) only in case no eligible applicant is found or no applicant get selected under Group-1& Group-

2.In case land offered by all the applicants under Group 1 & Group 2 is found not suitable/not meeting requirements, then these applicants under Group 1 & Group2 along with applicants under Group - 3 (who did not offer land along with application) would be advised by the OMCs to provide suitable land in the advertised location / stretch, within a period of 90 days from the date of issuance of intimation letter to them through SMS/e-mail. In case the applicant fails to provide suitable land within the prescribed period, or the land provided is found not meeting the laid down criteria, the application would be rejected.

The other conditions with respect to offering of land are as under:

(a) The land should be available with the applicant as on the date of application and should have minimum lease of 19 years and 11 months (as advertised by respective oil company) from the date or after the date of advertisement but not later than the date of application. If the offered land is on Long-term lease and there are multiple owners, then lease deed should be executed by all co-owners of the offered plot. In case lease deed is not executed by all co- owners; such lease deed shall be treated as invalid......." (emphasis supplied)

9. From the perusal of the records, it is apparent that the petitioner did not have the lease in his favour duly executed by all the co-shareres of the offered land. It is relevant to note that a Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Rahul Singh versus Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. and 3 others having writ number as Writ C No. 7354 of 2024 observed that,

"9. In view of the above, we find that the Brochure stipulates amongst others two contingencies (discussed here namely), one where the land may be owned by a person other than the applicant or his family members, second, where the land may be owned by the applicant alongwith others or others alongwith his family members or both. Considering the present facts land is owned by third parties to the exclusion of the applicant and his family members. That situation is dealt with in terms of Clause 4 (vi) (a).

10. The situation were the land may be owned by the applicant either in his own name or alongwith his family members and/or other persons has been dealt with in Clause 4 (vi) (m) under situations 1, 2 and 3 dealt with in the tabular chart under the heading "GROUP 1" appearing in that Clause.

11. Then, without reference to Clause (a), (m) or any Sub-Clause of Clause 4 (vi) of the Brochure, Note - 3 thereto only provides- whereever consent letter is required, it may be submitted on form Appendix III.

12. As noted above, in the present facts, the land offered in the allotment is not owned by the petitioner/applicant or the petitioner/applicant alongwith his family members or by the petitioner/applicant alongwith other owners and his family members. Therefore, Clause 4 (vi) (m) would not apply to the present facts.

13. On the contrary, the only Clause applicable to such facts would be Clause 4 (vi) (a). That Clause clearly stipulates that the land offered for allotment should be available to the applicant on the date of submission of his application against a long term lease executed by "all co-owners". The consequence of non execution of such lease deed is also provided in the said Clause. Thus it has been stipulated, in case such lease deed is not executed by all co- owners, the same shall be invalid. Once invalid that ineligibility attaches to the application submitted by the petitioner on the date of submission of his application.

14. For the purpose of application of the said Clause the requirement remains- execution of lease deed by all co-owners, therefore, consent letters cannot fulfil that stipulation. In face of the consequences of invalidity of the lease deed having been specified, there survives no occasion to consider if the defect in such application could ever been cured, after its submission.

15. Consequentially, the method of curing the defect considered under Note-3 (noted above) would remain confined to the cases falling under Clause 4 (vi) (m), only.

16. For the reasons noted above, we conclude, the petitioner's case would remain covered by Clause 4 (vi) (a) of the Brochure. It is admitted that the lease deed relied by the petitioner was not executed by all co-owners before the date of submission of the application. Therefore, there is no error on the part of the respondent in rejecting the application submitted by the petitioner."

10. It is also relevant to observe from 4 (vi)(a) of the said Brochure that the offered land of the applicant must be leased to him on the date of the application. In this regard, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. versus Swapnil Singh reported in 2015 SCC OnLine SC 1922 has been pleased to observe that,

".........We are unable to accept this contention of learned counsel for the respondent. The brochure and the application form clearly require the applicant to have a registered lease deed in her name. What is shown to us is a notarized document and admittedly this document, even though it may have been in existence, was formalised into a lease agreement only on 20th December, 2012 and that was registered on 21st December, 2012. The notarized document, therefore, does not advance the case of the respondent any further. Therefore, it is quite clear that the respondent was not eligible on the date of application, i.e., 13th September, 2011. Under the circumstances, we allow these appeals and set aside the order passed by the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court. No costs........."

11. From all that has been narrated hereinabove, it is clear that law on the issue regarding the lease of the offered land is well settled, i.e., for the successful application of the award of retail dealership outlet, it is incumbent upon the applicant that he/she must have a lease deed duly executed by all the co-sharers of the offered land on the date of the application.

12. In view of the facts as narrated hereinabove, it is abundantly clear that the petitioner was not having the lease in respect of the offered land in terms of clause 4(vi)(a) of the Dealership Selection Guidelines, 2023 and as such, in the light of the judgment rendered by this Court in the case of Rahul Singh (Supra), he was not eligible for being considered for the allotment/award of the retail dealership outlet. The impugned rejection of the candidature of the applicant/petitioner vide E-mail/order dated 01.03.2024 does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity. Therefore, the decision of BPCL/respondent no. 3 in rejecting the candidature of the applicant/petitioner needs no interference.

13. The writ petition lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed.

14. Parties shall bear their own costs.

Order date :-14.05.2024

Sumaira