Delhi High Court
Deep Mehta vs Indian Oil Corporation Ltd on 6 November, 2009
Author: Sanjiv Khanna
25.
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 12968/2009
% Date of decision: 6th November, 2009
DEEP MEHTA ..... Petitioner
Through Mr. Raman Duggal, Advocate.
versus
I.O.C LTD ..... Respondent
Through Mr. Rajat Arora, Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be
allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not ?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported
in the Digest ?
ORDER
1. This is the second round of litigation. The petitioner had earlier
filed W.P. (C) No. 7721/2008 and vide order dated 3rd November, 2008, the
writ petition was directed to be treated as a representation and the petitioner
was granted right of hearing. The respondents were directed to decide the
representation of the petitioner and not issue letter of intent with regard to
LPG distributorship in favour of a third party till then.
2. Pursuant to the said directions, the respondents have passed order
dated 9th October, 2009 rejecting the representation of the petitioner.
3. The petitioner after public notice dated 9th November, 2007 had
applied for LPG distributorship. It is the contention of the petitioner that the
selection committee had awarded 99.5% marks to the petitioner in terms of
W.P. (C) No. 12968/2009 Page 1
the norms for evaluating the candidates as prescribed. It is submitted that
the marks awarded to the second highest candidate were 91.5%.
4. In the impugned order dated 9th October, 2009 it has been recorded
that the petitioner was wrongly awarded 35 marks under the column 14.1.
The impugned order records that the petitioner had a notarized lease deed,
which was not registered at the time when the petitioner‟s case was
examined by the selection committee. It is further recorded in the impugned
order that as per the criteria prescribed, the petitioner could have been
awarded only 25 marks on the basis of the unregistered document.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn my attention to the
norms. The relevant portion of the said norms read as under:-
"14. NORMS FOR EVALUATING THE CANDIDATES
The LPG distributor will be selected on the basis of evaluation of
all eligible applicants on the following parameters.
a. Capability to provide infrastructure* 35 marks
b. Capability to provide finance* 35 marks
c. Educational qualifications** 15 marks
d. Age ** 4 marks
e. Experience 4 marks
f. Business ability/acumen 5 marks
g. Personality** 2 marks
Total marks 100 marks
The evaluation on the parameters „a‟ to „d‟ above will be done on
the basis of the information given in the application. The
evaluation on the parameter „e‟ „f‟ & „g‟ will be done based on the
interview.
14.1 Allocation of marks on various parameters based on
documents will be carried out as per the information given in
the application.
Parameter Sub Head Description Max Evaluation
Marks
*Capability Suitable Owns @ - 25 Based on the
to provide land for Having clear information &
Infrastructure LPG title/Registered statement given
and facilities storage Sales Deed of in the
(as on the godown the suitable application.
date of /godown land/godown
W.P. (C) No. 12968/2009 Page 2
application) OR Firm offer 18 Based on the
@@-Having information &
agreement to statement given
purchase/lease in the
suitable application.
land/godown
OR Can arragne 10 Based on the
information &
statement given
in the
application.
[email protected] 10 Based on the
Suitable clear information &
land/shop title/Registered statement given
for Sales Deed of the application.
showroom the suitable
land/shop for
showroom
OR Firm offer 7 Based on the
@@-Having information &
agreement to statement given
purchase in the
suitable application.
land/shop for
showroom
OR Can arrange 5 Based on the
information &
statement given
in the
application.
Sub total 35
maxim marks
"
6. The term „owns‟ used in clause 14.1 has been further explained as
under:-
"@ Own means having clear ownership title of the
property or on long leased (minimum 15 yrs) in the name
of family member as defined in eligibility criteria/multiple
distributorship norm duly supported by documents.
@@ Firm offers means an agreement on stamp paper for
sale or lease (minimum 15 yrs) between the applicant and
the owner duly supported by documents."
W.P. (C) No. 12968/2009 Page 3
7. The term „owns‟ in Clause 14.1 to get 25 and 10 marks as
explained in the said guidelines means a clear ownership of title in the
property or long lease of minimum 15 years. Similarly, for obtaining 18 and
7 marks under the heading „firm offer‟, the guidelines stipulate that the
applicant should have an agreement on a stamp paper for sale or lease of
minimum 15 years. The norms further stipulate that the evaluation of
parameters „a‟ to „d‟ would be done on the basis of information given in the
application. In the present case, the petitioner did not have a registered lease
deed on the date when he had made the application and on the date when the
application was considered by the selection committee. The petitioner
accordingly is not a person, who owns land as defined in the said norms. It
is well settled that under Transfer of Property Act, 1882 lease deed for a
period of 15 years or more is required to be registered. Unregistered lease
deed, creates only month to month tenancy. In the present case, therefore,
the petitioner was entitled to 18 and 7 marks under clause 14.1 and the
selection committee had wrongly allotted 25 and10 marks, i.e., 35 marks.
The said error was corrected by the respondents and has been duly noticed in
the impugned order dated 9th October, 2009. In case the petitioner is allotted
25 marks, he will be below the second highest candidate.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the unregistered
lease deed was subsequently registered before the impugned order was
passed. It is, however, accepted that this registration was done after the
proceedings before the selection committee were over. The selection
committee could not have presumed that the lease deed would be registered
subsequently. In the present case the doctrine of relating back cannot be
applied. The selection committee was required to allot marks on the basis of
the factual position as it existed and not on any presumption. The norms
stipulated that evaluation of parameters was to be done on the basis of the
application i.e. the factual position as it actually existed.
W.P. (C) No. 12968/2009 Page 4
9. In these circumstances, I see no reason to interfere with the
impugned order dated 9th October, 2009 and the writ petition is dismissed.
NOVEMBER 06, 2009 SANJIV KHANNA, J.
VKR/NA
W.P. (C) No. 12968/2009 Page 5
