The Indian Oil Corporation ... vs Gosala Raju,
2021 Latest Caselaw 5354 AP

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH: AMARAVATI

  HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, CHIEF JUSTICE
                                     &
         HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

                    WRIT APPEAL No.310 of 2021

                         (Through physical mode)

The Indian Oil Corporation Limited, Rep., by its
Chief Divisional Retail Sales Manager, CDRSM
Indian Oil Corporation Limited, Marketing Division,
Vijayawada, Division Office, 3rd Floor, GVR Towers,
Opposite to Novotel, Bharati Nagar -520 008 and others.
                                                       ..Appellants

                                Versus
Gosala Raju, S/o Mohan Rao, Aged about 37 years,
Occ: Business, C/o Gudivaka Anka Reddy,
D.No.3481, 3rd ward, Avanigadda, Krishna District,
Andhra Pradesh and others.
                                                         ...Respondents

Counsel for the appellants : Mr. Sanjay Suraneni & Ms. Avanija Inuganti

Counsel for respondent No.1 : Mr. N.N. Somendra Reddy

Counsel for respondent No.2 : Mr. N. Harinath, ASG

ORAL JUDGMENT

Dt:20.12.2021

(per M. Satyanarayana Murthy, J)

This writ appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent is preferred

by the Indian Oil Corporation Limited and two others against the order

dated 16.04.2021 passed in W.P.No.8450 of 2019, whereunder the

learned single Judge while holding that the rejection of application of the

writ petitioner on the ground of non-mentioning of survey number is

illegal, directed respondent Nos.1 to 3 therein to entrust the dealership of

Retail Outlet at Koduru on Vullipalem Road, Koduru Mandal, Krishna HCJ & MSM,J

District, to the writ petitioner by completing the formalities and by

terminating the dealership of the 5th respondent therein in two weeks

from the date of receipt of copy of the order.

2. The 1st appellant-Indian Oil Corporation issued a notification for

appointment of retail outlet at Koduru village, Koduru Mandal, Krishna

District under Scheduled Caste (SC) category on 25.11.2018 vide paper

publication in Eenadu Telugu daily. The writ petitioner being a member of

Scheduled Caste community and having possessed requisite qualification,

submitted online application dated 22.12.2018 annexing requisite

documents vide reference application No.15454925764175 and also in

physical form dated 13.02.2019. The 1st appellant-Corporation conducted

draw of lots of all applications on 06.02.2019 and selected the writ

petitioner as eligible for allotment of dealership for the above mentioned

location. On 09.02.2019, the 1st appellant-Corporation sent an e-mail

directing the writ petitioner to submit relevant documents and other

information and the writ petitioner obliged and submitted the same on

13.02.2019 to one Mr. Srivardhan Reddy, Senior Manager, IOCL Divisional

Office at Vijayawada. During scrutiny, it was found that the writ petitioner

mentioned wrong survey number of the offered land (mentioned

registered document number instead of survey number), and the same

was intimated to the writ petitioner and thereafter, the 1st appellant-

Corporation selected the 3rd respondent for allotment of dealership.

Challenging the same, the writ petitioner filed the writ petition on the

ground that there was a typographical mistake and it is not a ground to

reject his application for allotment of dealership of IOCL Retail Outlet at

Koduru, whereas respondent Nos.1 to 3 in the writ petition (appellants HCJ & MSM,J

herein) raised a contention that it is not a rectifiable mistake and it is a

ground to reject the application.

3. The learned single Judge relying upon the principle laid down in

Rajesh Parmar Vs. Under Secretary, Petroleum Corporation and

others reported in Manu/MP/0121/2019 and having concluded that

the application of the writ petitioner was unjustly and illegally rejected by

the 1st appellant-Corporation, issued the directions referred to above.

Aggrieved by the order of the learned single Judge, the present appeal is

preferred on various grounds.

4. The main ground urged by the appellants is that as per clause (p)

of List of Non-Rectifiable Deficiencies, which indicates that change in

Khasra No/Khatouni/Gut No/Survey No etc., of offered land is non-

rectifiable, non-mentioning of survey number is a non-rectifiable defect

and it is a ground for rejecting the application of the petitioner. It is also

contended that as per Clause No.22 of the Guidelines on Selection of

Dealers for Regular and Rural Retail Outlets Through Draw of Lots/Bidding

Process, if any statement made in the application or in the documents

enclosed therewith or subsequently submitted in pursuance of the

application by the candidate at any stage is found to have been

suppressed/misrepresented/incorrect or false, then the application is liable

to be rejected without assigning any reason and in case, the applicant has

been appointed as a dealer, the dealership is liable to be terminated, but

this guideline was not considered by the learned single Judge.

5. It is also contended that no fundamental rights of the writ

petitioner are infringed on account of rejection of his application and

therefore, the order of the learned single Judge is illegal. It is also

contended that the issuance of direction by the learned single Judge to HCJ & MSM,J

terminate the dealership of the 3rd respondent herein and allot the same

to the writ petitioner is illegal for the reason that the entire process of

scrutiny for allotment of dealership to the writ petitioner is not completed

as on date and therefore, requested to set aside the same.

6. The first and foremost contention raised by the appellants is that as

per clause (p) of List of Non-Rectifiable Deficiencies, non-mentioning of

survey number is incurable and it is one of the non-rectifiable deficiencies

and the writ petitioner mentioned wrong survey number and therefore,

there is no illegality in rejecting the application of the petitioner.

7. According to the learned counsel for the writ petitioner,

typographical mistake was crept in the application and it is only accidental

mistake and it will never be a ground to reject the application for the

reason that the petitioner mentioned the registered document number

instead of survey number. The writ petitioner had not intended to change

the survey number to attract non-rectifiable deficiencies under clause (p),

but he wrongly mentioned registered document number instead of survey

number. It does not amount to change of survey number to attract non-

rectifiable deficiencies pointed out by the learned counsel for the

appellants. In any view of the matter, when the land offered by the

writ petitioner is identifiable with reference to the document number and

its boundaries, it will never be a ground to reject the application of the

writ petitioner and it does not constitute any non-rectifiable deficiency.

8. Perusal of the order under appeal goes to show that similar issue

came up for consideration before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in

Rajesh Parmar case and the Court held as under:

"It is also true that in response to invitation of applications through paper publication for allotment of petrol HCJ & MSM,J

pump outlets, offers made by the applicants and acceptance thereof are in the realm of commercial transactions guided by the principles of Indian Contract Act, at the same time, the process of selection must be in conformity with the concept of reasonableness on the touchstone of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Fairness is the basic requirement of principle of natural justice; sine qua non of rule of law. There is no dispute that the land offered by the petitioner is in conformity with the requirements under the advertisement as regards its dimensions and location. However, inadvertence or clerical error occurred in the description of land in the application could not have been stretched too far to conclude that the land offered is at variance with the survey number mentioned in the application to declare the applicant not eligible for allotment of petrol pump. Such recourse adopted by the HPCL purportedly relying upon the aforesaid quoted last lines of Annexure R/4 is in conflict with the Wednesbury principles of reasonableness lucidly explained by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in catena of cases."

In view of the law laid down by the Madhya Pradesh High Court, which is

applicable to the present facts and circumstances of the case, non-

mentioning of survey number is not a ground to reject the application of

the writ petitioner.

9. The learned counsel for the appellants has drawn our attention to

the judgment of the High Court of Patna in Indian Oil Corporation

Limited and another Vs. Raj Kumar Jha reported in (2012) 2 PLJR

783, wherein the Patna High Court held as under:

"8. We are of the opinion that the Corporation being the State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution is supposed to act fairly, reasonably and uniformly and has to be objective in its approach. Once the standard is set out in the advertisement, the Corporation has to adhere to the HCJ & MSM,J

said standard without any variation. In case, the Corporation allows any alteration the same will amount to subjective approach which is frowned upon by the Courts time and again. To remain objective the Corporation is required to adhere to the standards mentioned in the advertisement. In the present case, it is not in dispute that the application made by the writ petitioner was not in conformation with the requirements mentioned in the advertisement. In our opinion, the Corporation was justified in rejecting the application of the writ petitioner.

9. The learned single Judge ought not to have interfered with the decision of the Corporation which was taken in consonance with the terms and conditions contained in the advertisement. Besides; may be, in the present case it was a mere typographical error. However, there might be a case of mischief or misrepresentation also. It is difficult to draw a line where an error ends and a mischief or misrepresentation begins. The best way to avoid discrimination is strict adherence to the standards mentioned in the advertisement. For the aforesaid reasons we hold that the Corporation was justified in rejecting the application of the writ petitioner. The Appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment and order dated 28th January 2010 passed by the learned single Judge in CWJC No. 13196 of 2009 is set aside. CWJC No. 13196 is dismissed. "

The facts in the above case are different from the facts of the present

case. But the judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Rajesh

Parmar case is almost identical to the present facts of the case.

10. In any view of the matter, as per the settled law, when there is a

mistake in survey number, extent and boundaries will prevail. In the

present case, the document number mentioned contains the details like

boundaries and survey number of the land. Therefore, the land offered

by the writ petitioner can be identified.

HCJ & MSM,J

11. The appellants mentioned the following reasons for rejection of the

application of the writ petitioner vide letter dated 23.06.2019, which was

challenged in the writ petition:

"Dear sir,

1. Please refer to your application received by us as Application form No.15454925764175 on the subject.

2. Please also refer to our letter dated 09-Feb-2019 and wherein you were advised to submit certain documents.

3. However, it is observed that land documents submitted by you are not valid for considering the offered land under Group 1.

4. In view of the above, we regret to inform you that your candidature has been found ineligible. However, your candidature may get considered for selection along with Group 3 applicants as per guidelines."

12. Perusal of the letter challenged before the learned single Judge

indicates that the authorities observed that the documents submitted by

the petitioner are not valid for considering the offered land under Group I.

It is also alleged that the candidature of the petitioner has been found

ineligible and his candidature may get considered for selection along with

Group 3 applicants as per the guidelines. Rejection of application is not on

the ground of mentioning of wrong survey number. It is stated in the

above letter that the documents submitted by the writ petitioner are not

valid for consideration. So, the reason assigned for rejection of the

application of the writ petitioner is vague. Therefore, it did not stand to

scrutiny to uphold the contention of the appellants. Even otherwise,

Clause 22 of the guidelines indicates that if it is found by the authorities

that the candidate has suppressed/misrepresented/incorrect or false,

then, the application is liable to be rejected without any reason. It is not HCJ & MSM,J

a case of submitting any incorrect or false information along with the

application. But instead of mentioning survey number, the writ petitioner

mentioned registered document number. Therefore, it cannot be held

that the writ petitioner submitted incorrect/false information which

enables the appellants herein to reject the application of the petitioner

invoking clause 22 of the guidelines. The grounds raised for rejection of

the application of the writ petitioner are illegal, and therefore, persuading

by the judgment of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in Rajesh

Parmar, the learned single Judge rightly concluded that the rejection is

not in accordance with law.

13. Yet another contention raised by the learned counsel for the

appellants is that the direction issued by the learned single Judge is illegal

for the reason that the entire process of scrutiny is not completed for

allotment of dealership or for issuing LOI to the writ petitioner after

terminating the dealership of the 3rd respondent herein. No doubt, as per

the direction issued by the learned single Judge, almost entire procedure

is dispensed with. However, such dispensation of procedure is

impermissible under law.

14. In view of the above, while setting aside reason No.3 mentioned in

letter dated 23.06.2019 of the appellants sent by Gmail, the order of the

learned single Judge is modified by permitting the appellants to scrutinize

the application and other documents produced by the writ petitioner and if

they are found in order, irrespective of the deficient survey number

mentioned in the application in respect of the land offered by the writ

petitioner, the appellants shall take appropriate steps on the application of

the writ petitioner.

HCJ & MSM,J

15. With the above modification, the Writ Appeal is disposed of. No

costs. All pending miscellaneous applications shall stand closed.

PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, CJ M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY,J

Nn