Bombay High Court
Parshuram Vithal Mirase vs The Executive Director Retail ... on 10 February, 2021
Bench: S.P. Deshmukh, Abhay Ahuja
(1)
940 WP 13963-19
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
940 WRIT PETITION NO.13963 OF 2019
Shri Parshuram s/o Vithal Mirase,
Age 55 years, Occu. Agriculture,
R/o. At Post Thara Tq. Kinvat
District Nanded.
Versus
1) The Executive Director (Retail),
Indian Oil Corporation, Indian Oil
Bhavan, G-9, Ali Yavar Jung Marg,
Bandra (E), Mumbai - 400051.
2) The Deputy General Manager (RS),
Indian Oil Corporation Limited,
Aurangabad Divisional Office, Plot
No.99, Indian Oil Bhavan, Jyoti
Nagar, Aurangabad - 431005.
...
Advocate for Petitioner : Mr. Yogesh B. Bolkar
Advocate for Respondents : Mr. A.P. Bhandari
...
CORAM : SUNIL P. DESHMUKH AND
ABHAY AHUJA, JJ
DATED : 10TH FEBRUARY, 2021
ORDER:-
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The position emerges that the petitioner had applied
for allotment of petroleum dealership in response to an
advertisement issued by respondent, based on an application for
940 WP 13963-19
an agreement to lease while pursuant to the brochure,
particularly, clause-A the application would be considered on a
declaration by the applicant about the category under which the
offered land falls. It appears that the petitioner had declared
candidature from Group-1 and accordingly had been considered
and in the draw of lots, he was shown to be the selected
candidate. However, on scrutiny, it was realized that his
candidature cannot be considered from Group-1, which category
requires having suitable piece of land either on ownership or on
long term lease [for a period of minimum 19 years and 11
months, or more] and such requirement would not be said to be
fulfilled by the petitioner since there being only registered
agreement to lease in his favour by the prospective lessors.
Finding aforesaid, pursuant to the guidelines under the brochure
having regard to clause-l and the note thereunder, his candidature
from Group-1 had been rejected and he had been put under
Group-3.
3. He further refers to clause-ix under item E. Since the
agreement to lease could have been rectified and a registered
lease deed could have been entered into, such an opportunity
ought to have been given pursuant to clause-ix, reading thus,
"ix. In case of rectifiable deficiency in the documents submitted, intimation
to the selected candidate to submit the required corrected documents
940 WP 13963-19
within 21 days."
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner purports to refer to
and rely on the judgment of Single Judge of Gujarat High Court in
the case of Bharat Sakarabhai Sorathiya Vs. State of Gujarat,
2019 SCC OnLine Guj 6649.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that before
issuing impugned order and putting him in Group-3, Note 3 under
the brochure ought to have been invoked, giving opportunity to
offer alternate land after field verification of credentials (FVC)/
issuance of letter of intent (LOI).
6. Learned counsel for the respondents, Mr. Bhandari
submits that the order has been passed in conformity with
relevant applicable terms and conditions of the brochure. While it
had been realized that the petitioner's offered land would not be
said to be from Group-1 category, as referred to above his
candidature had been put under Group-3. He further refers to
that there were lot of other candidates, who had offered lands
under Group-1. The further selection process would take place
according to the guidelines given in the brochure, initially, for
Group-1 candidates and then if there is no selection from said
category, the selection procedure would move on to other
categories.
940 WP 13963-19
7. The learned counsel draws our attention to the
decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Bharat Petroleum
Corporation Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Swapnil Singh (Civil Appeal Nos. 6928
- 6929 of 2015), wherein, it had been observed that the brochure
which showed that the applicant must be owner of the specified
area of land or must have a registered lease deed. It had been
considered that a notarized document would not advance the case
of the candidate. Applicant was neither owner of the land nor
does have registered lease deed in his name.
8. The decision of the Gujarat High Court in Bharat
Sakarabhai Sorathiya (supra) appears to have been based on a
different factual matrix that there had been an unregistered
agreement of lease and further that there had been time allowed
for it's registration under law. In such a case, the decision has
been rendered, which may not be able to hold sway in present
case.
9. Relevant Clauses of the brochure read thus:
"k) Each applicant will have to declare, in the application form, the
category under which offered land falls. Supporting the above,
confirmatory letter from an advocate (Appendix III B) giving details of
the current ownership, documents relied upon and the category under
which the land falls (Group 1 or Group 2), as on date of application,
is also to be furnished as and when advised. The Group under which
the applicant's land falls, would be determined based on the
declaration given in the application and confirmatory letter from the
advocate regarding the same.
940 WP 13963-19
l) It should be the responsibility of the applicant to ensure that as on date
of application:-
i. Offered land is of required dimension and abutting the Road
boundary, after leaving Right of Way (ROW) line of the road.
ii. The offered land is also not notified for acquisition.
iii. Land owner is in Possession of the land from the beginning /
edge of ROW line.
iv. There is no other land including Govt. land between ROW and
offered plot.
Note : In case it is found at later stage that the offered plot is
not meeting any of the above conditions then in such case the
offered land would be rejected and candidate will be given
opportunity along with applicants under Group 3 by intimation
through SMS/e-mail."
10. In the present case, the petitioner has not been able
to show that with the agreement to lease, his offer can be shown
to be falling in Group-1 category. While it is not the case that the
documents suffered any lacunae as an agreement to lease. Going
by the terms under the agreement to lease, the execution of the
lease deed was contingent upon grant of dealership otherwise, it
appears the parties did not intend to execute lease deed.
11. Note-3 would seldom have any application in present
factual scenario. Neither the petitioner was issued LOI nor was
proposed to be issued. Apart from that, it is not a case where it
can be said that the land offered meets specifications required for
selection nor it would be said that there was deficiency in the
document which could be said to be rectifiable, to be covered
under Clause-ix relied on behalf of the petitioner.
940 WP 13963-19
12. In the circumstances, it does not appear that the
arguments on behalf of petitioner could be said to carry any
water.
13. In view of aforesaid, the petition is not entertained and
is rejected.
[ABHAY AHUJA, J.] [SUNIL P. DESHMUKH, J.]
sarowar
