Nikhil Dilipsing Rajput vs The Union Of India And Others
2021 Latest Caselaw 5562 Bom

                                                            907-WP-2203-2020.odt

            IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                       BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                         WRIT PETITION NO.2203 OF 2020

Nikhil s/o Dilipsing Rajput,
Age 29 years, Occu: Nil,
R/o Daulat Smruti, Nana Chowk,
near Ganpati mandir, Bazar Peth,
Pimpalner, Tq. Sakri,
Dist. Dhule.                                                ... Petitioner

                   Versus

1.        The Union of India,
          Through Ministry of Petroleum
          & Natural Gas, New Delhi.

2.        General manager,
          Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.,
          Indian Oil Bhavan, G-9, All
          Yavar Jung Marg, Bandra (East),
          Mumbai - 400051.

3.        Region Manager,
          Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.,
          Aurangabad Divisional Ofce.
          Plot No.99, Indian Oil Bhavan,
          Jyoti Nagar, Aurangabad.

4.        Swapnil s/o Sambhaji Pagare,
          Age Major, Occu: selected candidate,
          R/o Muktai Bangla, Near Vidya Wardhini
          Arts, Commerce & Science College,
          Sakri Raod, Vidhya Vihar Colony, Dhule,
          Maharashtra-424001.                               ... Respondents

                                      ...
            Advocate for Petitioner : Shri Sushant C. Yeramwar
            Advocate for Respondent No.1 : Shri D. G. Nagode
          Advocate for Respondent Nos. 2 & 3 : Shri A. P. Bhandari
             Advocate for Respondent No.4 : Shri D. S. Bagul
                                      ...

                                       1




     ::: Uploaded on - 31/03/2021              ::: Downloaded on - 03/09/2021 09:31:21 :::
                                                                  907-WP-2203-2020.odt


                                    CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE AND
                                            B. U. DEBADWAR, JJ.

DATE : 24TH MARCH, 2021

ORAL JUDGMENT [PER RAVINDRA V. GHUGE] :

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard fnally

by the consent of the parties.

2. The petitioner has put forth prayer clause (B) and (C) as

under :

"B) To quash and set aside letter dated 10.01.2020 and direct the respondents to grant retail outlet dealership at location No.2006 in Dhule District pursuance to advertisement dated 25.11.2018 and selection dated 27.06.2019 by issuing appropriate writ, orders or direction as the case may be.

C) To grant stay to letter dated 10.01.2020 and direct the respondents to grant retail outlet dealership at location No.2006 in Dhule District pursuance to advertisement dated 25.11.2018 and selection dated 27.06.2019 pending hearing and fnal disposal of the present writ petition."

3. The petitioner is aggrieved by the communication dated

10-01-2020 addressed to him by the Head of the Divisional Ofce,

Indian Oil Corporation, Ltd., which is respondent No.2 herein. By the

impugned communication dated 10-01-2020, the petitioner was

informed that his candidature has not been found to be eligible for

Retail Outlet (R.O.) dealership on the basis of the documents

submitted by him for the reasons as were detailed as under :

"a) Appendix III A and Appendix III B is of ofer date of fling

907-WP-2203-2020.odt

application Eligible Certifcate for the category Appendix VII A not

submitted."

4. By the order dated 04-02-2020, passed by this Court,

ad-interim protection was granted to the petitioner by directing that

"respondents may proceed further with the process, however, shall

not issue fnal allotment order." Respondent No.4 herein was the

selected candidate. Owing to the interim order of this Court, though

respondent No.4 was held to be eligible and was selected for grant

of R.O. dealership, respondent Nos. 2 and 3, the company, have not

yet issued the fnal order of allotment.

5. It is undisputed that, clause (4)(vi)(b) of the Brochure

for the selection of the candidates for the R.O. dealership

specifcally provides that "the candidates will be required to submit

as and when advised by the Oil Company, a certifcate issued by

the competent authority notifed by the Government of India and/or

by the concerned State in which the location has been advertised

certifying that the candidate belongs to Other Backward Classes

recognized as OBC by a Resolution / Gazette Notifcation issued by

the Government of India (Central Government/ State Government)"

6. It is equally undisputed that the note below clause 4 of

the Brochure specifcally states that "1. All certifcates/ documents

required for meeting Eligibility / Specifc Eligibility Criteria should be

907-WP-2203-2020.odt

in possession of the applicant and valid as on the date of

application."

7. It is, therefore, beyond debate that the documents

which are to be supplied with the application form and which can be

tendered (hard copies) within such period as may be permitted by

the company, should be in possession of the applicant on the date

of his application, to indicate that when he applied for the R.O.

dealership, he was fulflling the eligibility criteria as prescribed by

the company.

8. It is, therefore, clear from the rules made applicable by

the company that on the date of the application by an interested

candidate seeking R.O. dealership, he should be in possession of all

the documents required, including the caste certifcate, as the cut-

of date for considering eligible candidates was 22-12-2018. We

have no hesitation in concluding that on 22-12-2018, candidates

who possessed these documents and the caste certifcate were

eligible and those candidates who did not possess any of the

required documents and importantly, the caste certifcate, on the

date of application, were obviously ineligible candidates.

9. The learned advocate for the petitioner submits, on the

basis of the record, that he had received a communication dated

27-06-2019, by which he was given ten days' time for submitting

907-WP-2203-2020.odt

the said documents and for remitting Rs.40,000/- as a security

deposit, on-line. He concedes, on the basis of the record, that the

petitioner did not have Appendix III B (Advocate's letter) along with

appendix III A (For ofer of land), as on 22-12-2018, which was the

cut-of date for entering applications for R.O. dealership by

interested candidates. He frankly submits on the basis of the record

that these two documents are dated 03-07-2019 and they were

prepared after the petitioner received the communication dated 27-

10-2019, for tendering the said documents. He also submits, on the

basis of the record, that the Eligibility Certifcate for OBC category

was not in his possession, when he applied on 22-12-2018 and the

R.O. dealership at issue, was reserved for candidates belonging to

the OBC category.

10. The Company has entered an afdavit-in-reply on behalf

of respondent Nos. 2 and 3 and have stated in paragraph No. 04 as

under :

"04. I say that, there is no dispute regarding the following facts.

A. Advertisement dated 25-11-2018 was issued for allotment of Regular and Retail outlet in various parts of Maharashtra, including for location "From Pimpalner Post Ofce towards Navapur within 2 "M" from OBC category. B. Petitioner has fled application on 22.12.2018 and he is declared to be selected for establishment of dealership. Clause No.9 of the application states that, the Advocate of the applicant has certifed the land to be

907-WP-2203-2020.odt

belonging to Group-1.

C. The applicant has ofered land owned by his father Mr. Dilipsing Rajput (page 17).

D. In the draw of lots held on 26.06.2019. The petitioner was successful and was informed of his preliminary selection, subject to compliance of norms (Page 20).

E. Petitioner submitted opinion of Advocate Mr. Dnyaneshwar Ekhande, dated 03.07.2019 (page29) and afdavit of his father dated 03.07.2019 (page 30 to 34). F. The petitioner has submitted caste certifcate of OBC category dated 02.07.2019.

G. Candidature of the petitioner came to be cancelled by the communication dated 10.01.2020, candidature of the petitioner is rejected on the ground that, the caste certifcate submitted is later than the date of advertisement and Appendix III-A and III-B are of a date after the date of fling of the application. H. Petitioner possesses certifcate of belonging to "Rajput Bhamta" (OBC) Caste. However, the same is issued on 02.07.2019 (Page 36).

I. The certifcate at page 12 of petition is dated 28.08.2006. However, the same certifes that, the petitioner is belonging to Vimukta Jati and there is no certifcation of OBC status. "

11. It is further submitted in the afdavit-in-reply in

paragraph Nos. 04 (2nd paragraph with the same number) and 05 as

under :

"04. I say that, as the petitioner has failed to satisfy the requirement of possessing the OBC certifcate, as applicable on the date of submission of the application, the candidature of the petitioner came to be cancelled.

907-WP-2203-2020.odt

The petitioner has relied upon the earlier certifcate dated 28.08.2006. However, said certifcate is recognizing the petitioner as a person belonging to Vimukta Jati. Furthermore, subsequent certifcate submitted by the petitioner is secured after submission of application.

05. I say that, Clause (4)(vi)(b) of the Brochure for selection specifcally contemplates that, "the candidates will be required to submit as and when advised by the Oil Company, a certifcate issued by the competent authority notifed by the Government of India and / or by the concerned State in which the location has been advertised certifying that the candidate belongs to Other Backward Classes recognized as OBC by a Resolution / Gazette Notifcation issued by the Government of India (Central Government / State Government)"

12. In some what similar facts, in Writ Petition No.9974 of

2019 fled by Rajendra Bapurao Hande Vs. Bharat Petroleum

Corporation Ltd. And Another, the learned Division Bench of this

Court has noted that some of the documents, that were required as

a part of the eligibility criteria on the date of entering the

application by the interested candidate, were not available with the

petitioner and those were prepared after the cut-of date. This

Court, therefore, held that such a candidate would not be eligible. In

Writ petition No. 5812 of 2019, fled by another similarly placed

candidate Navnath s/o Shankar Badage Vs. Indian Oil Corporation,

Ltd. and Another, the learned Division Bench of this Court delivered

an order on 18-06-2019, holding the same view.

907-WP-2203-2020.odt

13. In view of the above, we do not fnd that the company

has committed any error in conveying to the petitioner, vide the

impugned communication dated 10-01-2020, that he was found

ineligible for being considered for the grant of R.O. dealership. This

petition, being devoid of merits is being dismissed. Rule is

discharged.

14. The learned advocate for the petitioner submits on

instructions, that this order be kept in abeyance for a period of eight

weeks and the ad-interim protection granted by this Court on 04-02-

2020, may be continued. The learned advocate for the company

and the learned advocate for the benefciary respondent No.4

submit that the grant of R.O. dealership is for a particular spot on a

high-way and by the ad-interim order of this Court, the said

dealership could not be made operational, much to the discomfort /

inconvenience to the public at large. Consistently, the learned

Division Bench of this Court has taken the view as has been taken

by this Court in this judgment.

15. The Learned advocate for respondent No.4 submits that

he is prepared to enter an afdavit in this Court and supply a copy

of the same to the company at it's ofce at Aurangabad, within 10

days from today, declaring that in the event the petitioner

approaches the Hon'ble Apex Court and in the event he secures a

907-WP-2203-2020.odt

favourable order thereby dis-entitling respondent No.4 for being

granted the R.O. dealership, no equities would be created in his

favour, if the company now grants the dealership by virtue of the

dismissal of this petition and he would abide by the orders of the

Hon'ble Apex Court.

16. In view of the above, we reject the request of the

petitioner for continuing the ad-interim order considering that the

public at large is the benefciary of the allotment of the dealership

and we clarify that respondent No.4 shall enter an afdavit as

stated above, within ten days from today in this Court with a copy

to the company.

(B. U. DEBADWAR, J.) (RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)

SVH