Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Soumitra Hazra vs Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. & Ors on 7 February, 2023
07.02.2023
Court No.12
S/L. No. 9
Suvayan/
Sourav
MAT 1424 of 2019
With
IA No: CAN 2 of 2019 (Old No: CAN 12452 of 2019)
Soumitra Hazra
Vs.
Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. & Ors.
Mr. Soumyadip Panda
...for the appellant.
Mr. Puspendu Chakraborty
...for the respondent nos. 1, 2 and 3.
Mr. Suman Dey
...for the respondent no. 4.
Heard Mr. Soumyadip Panda, learned Counsel
for the appellant, Mr. Puspendu Chakraborty, learned
Counsel for the respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 (oil
company) and Mr. Suman Dey, learned Counsel for
the respondent No. 4.
The writ petition was filed by the present
appellant challenging the selection of respondent No. 4
as a candidate for award of contract to him by the oil
company for setting up of a petrol pump. The
challenge in the writ petition was two folds: i) firstly,
that the extent of the land that has been offered by the
respondent No. 4 was less than the area of land that
was required to be offered as per the advertisement
and the brochure, ii) that the land offered was partly
"jal" (water) land and, therefore, the same was not
suitable for the purpose of setting up of the petrol
pump.
After hearing the learned Counsel for the
parties, learned Court below relied on the decision of
Caretel Infotech Ltd. Vs. Hindustan petroleum
corporation Ltd. & Ors. (Civil Appeal No. 3588 of 2019)
arising out of SLP (C) No. 46 of 2019 and eschewed the
contentions raised by learned Counsel for the
petitioners on facts on the ground that the land offered
by the respondent No. 4 pursuant to the invitation to
offer is more than required area and "jal" kisan of land
being a species of agricultural land can be converted to
commercial use as and when required.
Mr. Panda, learned Counsel for the appellant,
with all the vehemence at his command submits that
the respondent No. 4 has offered land vide R.S. Dag
No. 2731 aggregating to 9 decimal of land. But so far
as R.S. Dag No. 2731 is concerned three deeds have
been submitted by the respondent No. 4; the first deed
is a sale deed for 2 decimal of land, the second deed is
a sale deed for 3 decimal of land and the third deed is
an exchange deed for 4 decimal of land. It is
submitted by Mr. Panda that the third deed being a
deed of exchange cannot be added to the area of lands
offered in the first two deeds as the third deed
appertains to exchange of land provided in the first
two deeds. Further it is submitted by Mr. Panda,
learned Counsel for the appellant that species of "jal"
kishan of land cannot be used for setting up of a petrol
pump in as much as such land contains standing
water.
Mr. Chakraborty, learned Counsel for the oil
company and Mr. Dey, learned Counsel for the
respondent No. 4 oppugns such contention of Mr.
Panda on the ground that the third deed which is a
deed of exchange is not relatable to the first and
second deeds and the third deed is in respect of some
other lands. It is submitted by them that if total land
pertaining to R.S. Dag No. 2731 and R.S. Dag No.
2734 are taken into consideration the total land
offered by respondent No. 4 comes to 24 decimals
which is more than sufficient as per the norms of the
advertisement and the brochure. It is further
submitted by them that "jal" land is quite distinct from
"pukur" land and there is legal embargo for converting
"pukur" land for commercial use but "jal" land, which
is a species of agricultural land can be converted to
commercial use as and when required.
Mr. Chakraborty, learned Counsel for the oil
company produce a letter dated 30.08.2019
subscribed by Block land and Land Reforms Officer,
Chandrakona-II, Paschim Medinipur to the effect that
the land in question has already been converted from
"jal" to "jaljami" and the same was never classified by
water bodies as per the official records.
All the aforesaid submissions were taken into
consideration painstakingly by Hon'ble Single Judge
and keeping in mind the self-imposed restrictions
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India which
should be adhered to a Judge of the constitutional
Court as ruled in the case of Caretel Infotech (Supra),
Hon'ble Single Judge eschewed the submissions
advanced by learned Counsel for the
petitioner/appellant and finding no merit to interfere
in the matter, dismissed the writ petition.
After going through the impugned order, we also
do not find any infirmity in the said order. Suffice it to
say that in a matter of contract, though there is
vertical application of the principles of fundamental
rights, as enshrined in part III of the Constitution of
India, the authority floating the "invitation to tender"
is the best Judge so far as their requirement is
concerned. When the authority concerned are
emphatic on the point that respondent No. 4 has
offered sufficient land and the said land is suitable for
setting up of a petrol pump, we do not find any scope
to interfere in their judgment over the issue. We also
do not find any fundamental rights of the petitioner
being infringed in the present appeal. Therefore, there
is no point in applying the principles of fundamental
right vertically in a case of agreement/contract
between an instrumentality of the State and a private
individual.
Regard being had to the facts and submissions
(Supra), we do not find any merit in the appeal and the
same is accordingly dismissed.
Before parting with the order we, however,
appreciate the pain undertaken by Mr. Panda, learned
Counsel for the appellant and the fairness with which
he conducted himself in presenting the appeal.
Accordingly, the appeal being MAT 1424 of 2019
along with interim application CAN 2 of 2019 (old No.
CAN 12452 of 2019) are dismissed.
There shall be no order as to costs.
(Chitta Ranjan Dash, J.)
(Partha Sarathi Sen, J.)
