Mamta Rani vs Union Of India And Ors.
1995 Latest Caselaw 784 Del

JUDGMENT

M.K. Sharma, J.

(1) This writ petition at the instance of the petitioner who is a physically handicapped person is directed against the decision of the Indian Oil Corporation Limited cancelling/withdrawing with immediate effect the Letter of Intent No. R:S:IC:Chant Road dated 22.3.1988 issued in favor of the petitioner.

(2) In pursuance of an advertisement inviting applications for allotment of retail outlet/dealership at Chant Road, District Faridabad, Haryana, the petitioner and respondent No. 4 submitted their applications for allotment of said retail outlet/dealership reserved for physically handicapped persons or Government employees who were disabled while on duty. One of the criteria/conditions to be fulfillled by the intending applicant was that the applicant should not be less than 21 years and more than 50 years of age on the date of application. The Oil Selection Board (hereinafter to be referred to as the Board) interviewed the petitioner as also the respondent No. 4 and on completion of the said interview prepared a panel wherein the respondent No. 4 was placed at Serial No. I and the petitioner was placed at Serial No. 2. In pursuance of the aforesaid position in the panel prepared by the Board the respondent No. 2, the Indian Oil Corporation Limited issued a Letter of Intent in favor of the respondent No. 4. Subsequently, thereto the Board revised its decision and came to the conclusion that the respondent No. 2 had not completed 21 years of age and that his date of birth was 30.10.1969. The said decision was taken by the Board without notice to the respondent No. 4. Pursuant to the aforesaid reversal of the decision by the Board the Letter of Intent issued in favor of respondent No. 4 was withdrawn and the petitioner was held to be entitled to the said retail outlet.

(3) Subsequently, a letter dated 7.3.1988 was issued on behalf of the Indian Oil Corporation by which the Letter of Intent dated 23.11.1987 issued in favor of respondent No. 4 was cancelled/withdrawn with immediate effect. The legality and validity of the aforesaid decision of the respondent No. 2 was challenged before this Court by the respondent No. 4 through a writ petition which was registered and numbered as Civil Writ Petition 485/1988. The petitioner as also the respondent No. 4 were heard in the aforesaid writ petition and thereafter this Court by its judgment and order dated 20.10.1994 allowed the writ petition filed by respondent No. 4 and set aside the letter dated 7.3.1988 issued by respondent No. 2. This Court by the aforesaid judgment further directed the Oil Selection Board or its appropriate bodies to reconsider the question afresh after hearing both the petitioner and respondent No. 4.

(4) In compliance of the aforesaid directions issued by this Court both the petitioner and the respondent No. 4 were issued notices to appear before the Oil Selection Board on 19.12.1994 and produce evidence in support of their respective claims/contentions. The respondent No. 4 appeared in person and the petitioner was represented by her Counsel. During the course of hearing the statement of the respondent No. 4 was recorded and he was cross-examined by the Counsel representing the petitioner. It further appears that the petitioner also produced documentary evidence including the certificate dated 29.11.1993 issued by the Block Education Officer, according to which the petitioner was admitted in 4th class by the order of the Block Education Officer dated 20.11.1979. The respondent No. 4 also produced some other documents like a photostat copy of the certificate issued by the C.M.O. Faridabad on 27.12.1988 and also a photostat copy of the Matriculation certificate issued by the Board of School Education, Haryana dated 3.3.1989 showing the date of birth of respondent No. 4 as 26.12.1965.

(5) After hearing the arguments advanced on behalf of the parties and on consideration of the documentary evidence produced on behalf of the parties the Oil Selection Board held that the correct date of birth of respondent No. 4 was 26.12.1965 and not 30.10.1969, and in view of the same it was further held that the respondent No. 4 was eligible from the point of view of age for being considered for the allotment in question. In view of the aforesaid findings the Oil Selection Board directed the respondent No. 2 to proceed and take necessary steps on the basis that the respondent No. 4 was at Serial No. I in the merit panel. In pursuance of the aforesaid findings and decision of the Oil Selection Board the respondent No. 2, Indian Oil Corporation Limited, decided that the letter of intent dated 22.3.1988 offering the retail outlet dealership in question to the petitioner stood cancelled/ withdrawn. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid decision of the respondent No. 2 the present writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner in this Court.

(6) Mr. Arun Bhardwaj, appearing for the petitioner submitted before us that the respondent No. 4 was not eligible to submit his application for retail outlet dealership as he had not attained the age of 21 years on the date of submission of his application and that the subsequent certificate produced by him before the Oil Selection Board were manipulated by respondent No. 4. It was further submitted that the Indian Oil Corporation Limited without giving any notice to the petitioner and without offering any opportunity unilaterally and arbitrarily cancelled the allotment of retail outlet dealership in their letter dated 7.2.1995. Further submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner was that the impugned decision of the Oil Selection Board was in gross-violation of the principles of natural justice.

(7) We have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the respondents, who submitted before us that the petitioner was given full opportunity by the Oil Selection Board while hearing the entire matter on 19.12.1994, after the issue was remanded back by this Court for fresh disposal. The learned Counsel for the respondents further submitted that the statement of the respondent No. 4 was recorded and the Counsel representing the petitioner before the Board duly cross-examined the respondent No. 4 and also did not object to the placing of the documentary evidence by the respondent No. 4, which was in fact produced in evidence as allowed to be done so by this Court.

(8) Our attention has been drawn to the fact of the petitioner filing a suit in the Court of the District & Sessions Judge, Chandigarh, challenging the change of date of birth of respondent No. 4 by the Board of School Education, Haryana. The plaint of the said suit is on record. On perusal of the same we find that the petitioner in the said suit had also challenged the decision of the Oil Selection Board dated 19.1.1995. In the aforesaid suit the petitioner has listed in the plaint the following prayers:- "(i) Pass a decree of declaration declaring that the Chairman, Board of School Education, Haryana has no jurisdiction/power under the relevant Act and Rules to change the date of birth without following the procedure. (ii) Pass a decree of declaration to the effect that the change of date of birth of Shri Prithvi Singh (defendant No. 3) has been done without following the procedure and is therefore null and void in the eye of law. (iii) Pass a decree of declaration to the effect that the inquiry by the Oil Selection Board pertaining to the date of birth of Shri Prithvi Singh (defendant No. 3) was done in the most arbitrary and illegal manner without following the principles of natural justice and is therefore null and void in the eye of law. (iv) Pass a decree of declaration to the effect that the findings of the inquiry are bad, perverse, wrong and therefore cannot be given effect to. (v) Pass a decree of declaration to the effect that 26.12.1965 is not the correct date of birth of Shri Prithvi Singh and 3.10.1969 is the correct date of birth of Shri Prithvi Singh (defendant No. 3). (vi) Pass a decree of mandatory injunction to the effect that granting of permission to Shri Prithvi Singh (defendant No. 3) by defendant No. 2 to operate a Retail Outlet of India Oil Corporation is illegal, null and void. (vii) May also pass any other order in the interest of justice." 9. A reading of the aforesaid prayers would conclusively prove and establish that the findings and the decision of the Oil Selection Board holding that the correct date of birth of respondent No 4 was 26.12.1965 and that he was eligible from the point of view of age for being considered for allotment of the subject retail outlet are also the subject matter agitated in the suit. It further appears there from that the decision of the respondents No. 2 & 3 permitting the respondent No. 4 to operate the outlet of Indian Oil Corporation is also an issue raised in the said suit which is apparent from prayer No. 6 of the plaint of the aforesaid suit. A comparative study of the prayers made in the writ petition as also in the suit thus leaves no scope for 502 doubt in our mind that similar issues are being raised by the petitioner in the present petition as also in the suit filed by him and being proceeded with in the Court of the District & Sessions Judge, Chandigarh. The Oil Selection Board, while arriving at its finding and decision dated 19.1.1995 considered the various documentary evidence produced on behalf of respondent No. 4, and on critical consideration of the same came to the conclusion that the correct date of birth of the petitioner was 26.12.1965 and not30.12.1969. The Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner however, disputed the said findings of the Oil Selection Board before us contending inter alia that those certificates produced by respondent No. 4 before the Oil Selection Board are manipulated. However, the same are questions of fact and since the same issues are also being agitated through the aforesaid suit filed in the Court of the District & Sessions Judge, Chandigarh, we do not think that ours is an appropriate forum in which such disputed questions of fact could be enquired into and decided.

(9) The questions and issues raised before us for consideration require investigation into facts and interpretation of documents including the certificates placed by respondent No. 4 before the Oil Selection Board. In our opinion such issues involving investigation into disputed questions of fact and also involving recording of evidence cannot be satisfactorily adjudicated upon in our writ jurisdiction. We are, therefore, not inclined to enter into such disputed questions of fact in the present writ petition and leave the petitioner to pursue her remedy in the appropriate Civil Court, which she has already approached for reliefs mentioned in the plaint.

(10) In the result this writ petition is dismissed, but we leave the parties to bear their own costs.