Bombay High Court
Pallavi Vasantrao Kamble Alias Pallavi ... vs The Union Of India Through Ministry Of ... on 26 March, 2025
Author: R.G. Avachat
Bench: R.G. Avachat
2025:BHC-AUG:10140-DB
975-WP-6075-24.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 6075 OF 2024
Pallavi Vasantrao Kamble
@ Pallavi Nitin Tapse
Age: 39 years, Occu.: Business,
R/o Mauli Nagar, Pangari Road,
Beed, Tq. & Dist. Beed ..PETITIONER
VERSUS
1. Union of India
Through Ministry of Petroleum
New Delhi
2. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd.
Through its Managing Director,
17, Jamshedji Tata Road, Mumbai-20
3. The Regional Manager,
Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd.,
HPCL, Pakani IRD, Near Railway Station,
Pakani, Solapur 413255 ..RESPONDENTS
....
Mr. S.S. Gangakhedkar, Advocate for petitioner
Mr. S.S. Deve, Advocate for respondent no.1
Mr. A.P. Bhandari, Advocate for respondent nos. 2 and 3
....
CORAM : R.G. AVACHAT AND
SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE, JJ.
DATE : 26th MARCH, 2025
ORAL JUDGMENT ( PER : R.G. AVACHAT, J. ) :
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with consent
of the parties.
975-WP-6075-24.odt
2. The petitioner has filed the present petition for following main
reliefs :-
"B) By an order of this Hon'ble High Court in the like
nature of writ and/or appropriate order of direction, kindly quash
and set aside the impugned communication dated 11.02.2024 and
21.05.2024 relating to the shifting of candidature of the petitioner
into Group-III and consequently the application of the petitioner
bearing No.HPC1695521455871, be considered positively.
C) By an order of this Hon'ble High Court in the like
nature of writ and/or appropriate order or direction, kindly direct
the respondent No.3 to decide the complaint dated 04.04.2024
submitted by the petitioner within stipulated period."
3. Respondent No.2 - HPCL issued an advertisement dated 28 th June,
2023 for allotment of Retail Outlet Dealership. The petitioner preferred an
application from ST (Schedule Tribe) category. Since the land offered by the
petitioner has HT (High Tension) line crossing, her application was turned
down.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner first took us through the
brochure relating to scheme for allotment of the outlets. He adverted our
attention to Item No. VI pertaining to land. Under that head, the applicants
are classified into three groups as under :-
Ground - 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 10 years 11 months or as
advertised by the OMC.
Ground - 2 : Applicants having Firm Offer for a suitable piece of
land for purchase or long-term lease for a period of minimum 19
975-WP-6075-24.odt
years 11 months or as advertised by the OMC.
Ground - 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 gets selected under Group - 1 & Group - 2.
5. Admittedly, the petitioner, in her application, offered the land. As
such, initially she filed the application from the category of Group - 1.
6. Vide letter dated 23rd January, 2024, the petitioner was initially
called upon to remain present at the land / site on 02 nd February, 2024.
Through SMS, the schedule was preponed to 28th January, 2023, for the
reasons best known to the officials of HPCL. Learned counsel for the
petitioner would submit that 'Clause I - Land Evaluation' in the brochure
mandates that the provisionally selected candidate is required to be informed
well in advance at least by ten days before the day of visit by the Land
Evaluation Committee (LEC) for site evaluation. According to learned
counsel for the petitioner, in this case preponement of the schedule took
place within an hour's time. HPCL has thus not adhered to its own norms i.e.
Clause I of the brochure. He would submit that a breach thereof tantamount
to arbitrariness. He would further submit that fortunately the petitioner
could rush to the site in time and was present while the land was evaluated.
975-WP-6075-24.odt
7. He relied on the Apex Court's judgment in case of State of Uttar
Pradesh Vs. Sudhir Kumar Singh and Ors., (2021) 19 SCC 706 , wherein it has
been observed thus :-
"70.2 State in its executive capacity, even in the contractual
field, is under obligation to act fairly and cannot practice some
discriminations."
8. We can understand the plight of the petitioner. The fact is,
however that the petitioner herself has condoned the fault on the part of
HPCL. Had the land evaluation took place in the absence of the petitioner,
the case would have been different. The petitioner has already been in the
know of the fact that the land offered by her has HT line crossing, and
therefore, was not suitable. The petitioner, therefore, cannot be allowed to
turn around and say that the concerned Divisional Office did not inform her
at least ten days before the day of visit by LEC for site evaluation.
9. Since the petitioner's land was not found to be suitable under
Group - 1 category, her candidature was admittedly shifted to Group - 3
category. Then, learned counsel for the petitioner relies on Note 2 of the
brochure, which reads thus :-
"In case of locations where the applicant has not offered the land
in the application (Group-3) or if the offered land of all applicants
under Group-1 & Group-2 got rejected due to not meeting the laid
down criteria, then all such applicants shall be given an
opportunity to offer land or alternate land (as the case may be) in
the advertised location/stretch provided the applicant meet all
975-WP-6075-24.odt
other eligibility criteria.
A communication through SMS/e-mail would be sent to these
applicants to offer land/alternate land within a period of 90 days
from the date of offer letter.
On receipt of advice to offer land from OMCs the applicant should
submit land offer online and indicate the category under which
the land falls (Group - 1 or Group - 2). Upon selection, the
provisionally selected candidate would be required to upload all
the relevant documents pertaining to the land offered along with
consent letter in the form of affidavit (Appendix - III) and/or
Power of Attorney (Registered), if applicable.
The applicants would be classified into two groups i.e., Group - 1
& Group - 2 based on the land offered by them.
In case the applicant(s) fail to offer land/alternate land within the
specified period, the offer would be withdrawn, and application
rejected under limitation to the applicant(s) through SMS/e-mail.
Only one opportunity would be given to the applicant, either for
offering land (if applicant has not offered any land along with
application form) or for offering alternate land given to applicants
of locations advertised under SC/ST category (if the land offered
by the applicant is found to be not meeting the laid down criteria
during Scrutiny/land evaluation/rejection of land after selection,
for applicants who have offered land along with the application)."
11. According to learned counsel, since the petitioner belongs to
reserved category, she ought to have been given ninety days period to offer
alternate land. Respondent - HPCL did not issue her such letter and thus
committed breach of the terms of its offer. He heavily relied on the last
paragraph of Note 2 referred to hereinabove.
12. Since the applicant has offered the land in her application, there
was no question of her to be considered in Group - 3 category since
975-WP-6075-24.odt
beginning. In case, applicant in Group 1 and 2 gets rejected due to non
meeting the laid down criteria, then such applicant is given an opportunity to
provide other or alternate land in advertised location or within the stretch
provided, if the applicant meets the other eligibility criteria. There were total
eleven candidates from all the three groups besides four candidates from
Group - 1. If we closely read first paragraph of Note 2 and interpret the
same, it lead us to conclude that when candidature of the applicant from
Group 1 and 2 is rejected on the ground of not meeting the laid down
criteria, then and then only the candidates from Group 3 should be given an
opportunity providing ninety days time to offer an alternate site/land. It is
stated on affidavit that the applicant from Group 1 has fulfilled all the criteria,
and therefore, the process for issuance of letter of intent is under process.
Needless to mention, since the outlet was reserved for SC/ST category,
necessarily the one who would be allotted the outlet, would be of SC/ST
category only. The petitioner, therefore, cannot be heard to say that a
reserved category candidate was subjected to injustice.
13. In view of above, we do not find any reason to grant the petitioner
relief in this petition. Writ petition, therefore, stands dismissed. Rule is
discharged.
( SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE, J. ) ( R.G. AVACHAT, J. )
SSD
