Ashish Verma vs Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. ...
2024 Latest Caselaw 18656 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Ashish Verma vs Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. ... on 23 May, 2024

Author: Sangeeta Chandra

Bench: Sangeeta Chandra

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:39165-DB
 
Court No. - 3
 

 
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 4605 of 2024
 

 
Petitioner :- Ashish Verma
 
Respondent :- Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. Thru. Managing Director, Mumbai And Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Anand Shanker Asthana,Devashish Bhatt
 
Counsel for Respondent :- Aprajita Bansal
 

 
Hon'ble Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra,J.
 

Hon'ble Brij Raj Singh,J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Aprajita Bansal, learned counsel for the respondents/ Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited.

2. This petition has been filed with the following main prayers:-

"(i)Issue a writ in the nature of Certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 02/04/2024 passed by the opposite party no. 3 and the impugned order dated 18/04/2024 passed by the opposite party no.2, contained as Annexure No. 1 and 2, to this writ Petition.

ii. Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the opposite parties to consider the candidature of the petitioner for grant of retail outlet dealership for petrol pump in Where by pursuance of advertisement dated 28 June 2023 whereby Hindustan Petroleum corporation Ltd. (in short referred to as HPCL) advertised a location at Village Parsandi, Tehsil Laharpur on Parsandi Akbarpur Road, District Sitapur State Uttar Pradesh under OBC Category.

3. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. (in short referred to as 'HPCL') advertised a location at Village Parsandi, Tehsil Laharpur on Parsandi Akbarpur Road, District Sitapur under OBC Category vide advertisement dated 28.06.2023 for award of retail outlet dealership for petrol pump. In pursuance of said advertisement, the petitioner has applied on 21.09.2023.The draw of lots was conducted for selection of candidates for grant of retail outlet dealership and the petitioner was informed vide letter dated 22.02.2024 that he has been provisionally selected and such selection was subject to compliance of terms and conditions given in the guidelines/ procedure for selection of candidates.The petitioner received another email dated 22.02.2024, directing him to submit the documents as mentioned in the said email latest by 03.03.2024. The petitioner submitted the documents. He has received email on 6.03.2024 by which the petitioner was directed to upload the rectified/corrected copy of the Khasra/Khatauni or any other equivalent revenue documents or certificate obtained from the revenue authorities, conferring the status of ownership of land offered by the petitioner.

4. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner had taken the land of Gata No.852 situated at Village Parsandi, Pargana and Tehsil Laharpur, District Sitapur on leasefrom Kanhaiya Lal son of Rama Shanker for a period of 29 years and 11 months for establishment of retail outlet of HPCL .The total area of Gata No.852 is 0.522 hectare. The petitioner had taken 1/3 rd of the said land on rent from Kanhaiya Lal, who is one of the three co-owner of the land in question. The lease-deed is for a total area of 30 meters x 30 meters admeasuring 900 sq. meters. The petitioner has submitted 'No Objection Certificate' on the prescribed format Appendix III of the guidelines/tender notice. By a letter dated 02.04.2024, petitioner has been informed that his candidature has been rejected for the reason that the lease deed is not signed by all the co-owners of the land offered by him as per clause 4(vi) (a) of the guidelines for selection of dealers.It has been argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has already submitted 'No Objection Certificate' given by co-owners of the land.

5. The petitioner being aggrieved by the order dated 02.04.2024 submitted a representation on 10.04.2024 which has also been rejected by an order dated 18.04.2024 and is same is also challenged in this writ petition.

6. It has been argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that once the co-owners of the property in question have already given the No Objection Certificate and the land offered by the petitioner is sufficient i.e. 900 sq. meters for establishment of retail outlet, the candidature of the petitioner could not have been rejected on the sole ground for non-compliance of condition as enumerated in clause 4(vi) (a), which states that if the land offered by the applicant is on long term lease, then the lease should be executed by all the co-owners of the land .

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has pointed out Note 3(i) of the brochure for selection of outlet dealers, wherein it has been stated that in case after selection, if it is observed that the offered land is co-owned by multiple persons and the provisionally selected candidate did not provide the consent of all the co-owners, the provisionally selected candidate would be given 21 days' time to get consent of all the co-owners for the offered land, failing which candidature of the provisionally selected candidate will be rejected.It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner on the basis of Note 3(i) of the brochure for selection of dealers that the petitioner has also submitted 'No Objection Certificate' on behalf of all the co-owners, however, lease-deed has been signed by only one of the co-owners.

8. Ms. Aprajita Bansal, learned counsel for HPCL, on the basis of instructions received from her client, says that petitioner had applied under Group-I of the various groups for the candidature and Group- I requires that the person making an application is already in possession of land which is being offered for retail outlet on provisional selection to draw of lots. It was discovered during verification of documents that the land was owned by a third party. It has been submitted that three co-owners of Gata No. 852 only one of the co-owners had given a lease of 1/3 share of Gata No. 852, without there being any formal partition between the co-owners , therefore in the letter dated 6th march,2024,the reasons given for direction to the petitioner to rectify the documents, are as follows:-

"There is difference in the khatauni visible online versus what is uploaded by the applicant Certified copy of khatauni or clarification to be uploaded.

Revenue share certificate of all co-owners with land division record and map of individual shareholdings issued by competent revenue authority and valid on the date of lease to be submitted along with consent affidavits of all co-owners OR NA order u/s Sec 80 or 143 for the offered land as available as on the date of lease to be provided."

9. It is apparent from perusal of the said reasons given in the letter dated 06.03.2024 that the petitioner has uploaded the Khatauni in his application which was at variance with Khatauni visible on line of the revenue record. The Khatauni shows that there are three of co-owners of Gata No.852 but the petitioner has not mentioned this fact in his application. It is also submitted that in the application submitted by the petitioner, the petitioner had annexed a copy of the lease-deed without disclosing that the land of Gata No.852 was owned by three persons.

10. It has also been stated that without formal partition of the land offered by the petitioner, each of the co-sharers of such land is the owner of every inch of such land and therefore, the HPCL had asked that the lease-deed to be either signed by all of the co-owners or at least some documents issued by the revenue authorities regrading the shares of each of the co-owners and the land division being recorded in the map of the plot in question.

11. Learned counsel for HPCL has pointed out that the petitioner has submitted misleading application.There is a condition mentioned in the tender notice and the Brochure issued for selection of dealers that if any applicant submits a misleading information which is found on verification to be false, the candidature of such an applicant is liable to be rejected out rightly.In this case HPCL gave the petitioner sufficient opportunity for rectification of error but the petitioner could not rectify the same.

12. Learned counsel for HPCL has also placed reliance of three decisions of Co-ordinate Benches of this Court; (i) Writ-C No.7354 of 2024 "Rahul Singh Vs. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. and 3 others" decided on 06.03.2024 (Natural Citation No.2024:AHC:40545-DB), (ii) Writ-C No. 14563 of 2024" Rajeet Kushwaha Vs. Union of India and 3 others" decided on 02.05.2024 (Natural Citation No.2024:AHC:78751-DB), and (iii) Writ-C No. 8788 of 2024" Manoj Kumar Singh and 2 others Vs. Union of India and 2 others decided on 18.03.2024 (Natural Citation No.2024:AHC:47793-DB).

13. It has also been pointed out that the Co-ordinate Benches of this Court have considered Clause 4 (vi) of the brochure for selection of dealers of the IOCL, which is similar to that of the HPCL and has also interpreted Note 3 which has been relied upon by the petitioner in this writ petition.

14. We have gone through the judgments rendered by the Co-ordinate Division Benches of this Court and we find that the arguments that have been raised by learned counsel for the petitioner in this writ petition have been sufficiently dealt with in the case of Rahul Singh (supra) in paragraph nos 9,10,11,12,13,14,15 and 16 of the said judgment, which is being quoted below:-

"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."

15. The Division Bench has further observed that Note-3 appended below clause-(iv) and Appendix-III would be relevant to cases where land offered may belong to the applicant and /or his family members alongwith or without third parties. It would have no application to cases where the land offered belongs to third parties only viz-a-viz the applicant.

16. Learned counsel for HPCL has also pointed out that Clause (vi) (a) also says that if lease deed is not signed by all the co-owners, the candidature would be rejected.

17. This Court having considered the pleadings on record and also orders impugned and observations made by co-ordinate Division Benches is in respectful agreement with such observations, the writ petition stands dismissed.

18. No order as to costs.

Order Date :- 23.5.2024

dk/