Delhi High Court
Hindustan Petroleum Corporation ... vs Navi Jaan on 30 April, 2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Special Appeal No. 213 of 2010
Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd.
and others ........... Appellants
Versus
Navi Jaan ........... Respondent
Present: Mr. Rajendra Dobhal, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Vikas
Budhwar and Dinesh Gehtori, Advocates for the appellants.
Mr. Gopal K. Verma, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Manav
Sharma, Advocate for the respondent.
Coram: Hon'ble Barin Ghosh, C.J.
Hon'ble V.K. Bist, J.
BARIN GHOSH, C.J. (Oral)
An advertisement was published, whereby and under,
applications were sought from persons intending to set up retail
outlet dealership of petroleum products of the appellants.
Respondent/writ petitioner did not respond to the said
advertisement, inasmuch as, it was mentioned in the advertisement
that the applicants offering agricultural land shall convert the same
to non-agricultural purpose more particularly for the use of Petrol
Pump and other allied purposes at their own expenses and cost
before offering the same to the appellants. Respondent/writ
petitioner, therefore, proceeded on the basis that conversion of
agricultural land for non-agricultural use is a condition precedent
for applying and, accordingly, he did not apply. In the writ
petition, it was contended that the appellant is holding interview
of many such applicants, who have offered agricultural land, but
they have not yet converted such land for non-agricultural use.
The writ petition has been allowed by directing the appellants to
permit the respondent/writ petitioner to participate in the
interview, if the appellants have permitted those persons to
participate in the interview, who had applied earlier for retail
outlet dealership, but had not converted their agricultural land into
non-agricultural land. In the manner, the words in the
advertisement for appointment of retail outlet dealers have been
used and, in particular, "before offering the same to HPCL" in
clause No. (vii), it appears to us, confusion was likely to arise. An
ordinary person may feel that if in response to the advertisement
the person holds out that he has a land, but that land is an
agricultural land and has not yet been converted for non-
agricultural purpose, his offer of the land in question in his
application may not be accepted. However, the real intention of
the said clause was pertaining to the ultimate offer on selection as
is also crystal clear from clause No. (vii). In that clause, it was
indicated that the land must be suitable for development of Petrol
Pump and other commercial activities. In other words, what was
being asked was whether the land was suitable for development of
Petrol Pump and other commercial activities and it was indicated
that if the same is agricultural land, permission for non-
agricultural use thereof has to be obtained at the cost of the person
offering the land in question. The question of permitting a person,
who has not responded to the advertisement to participate in the
interview only because he thought that his application itself is an
offer for the land, is not sustainable.
2. We, accordingly, interfere, allow the appeal, set
aside the judgment under appeal and dismiss the writ petition.
(V.K. Bist, J.) (Barin Ghosh, C.J.)
30.04.2014 30.04.2014
P. Singh
