Vikash Chandra Aggarwal vs Union Of India Through Secretary & ...
2014 Latest Caselaw 3775 Del

        IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
                    AT NAINITAL
           Writ Petition No. 1469 of 2013 (M/S)

Vikash Chandra Aggarwal                              .....Petitioner
                      Versus

Union of India and others
                                                 ..........Respondents

Present:

Mr. Manoj Tiwari, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Navnish Negi, Advocate for the petitioner.

Ms. Anjali Bharga, Standing Counsel for the Union of India/respondent no. 1.

Mr. V.K. Kohli, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Kanit Ram Sharma, Advocate for respondent nos. 2 & 3.

Hon'ble Alok Singh, J (Oral).

In response to the advertisement dated 17.12.2010, the petitioner applied for the dealership/ petrol-diesel outlet (petrol pump) of respondent no. 3 for Balbhadrapur, BEL Road, Kotdwar, Pauri Garhwal under the general category. Respondent no. 2 informed the petitioner, vide letter dated 13.12.2011, that Land Evaluation Committee of respondent nos. 2 & 3 would visit the spot on 23.12.2011, therefore, the petitioner should remain ready with the original documents i.e. sale deed/lease deed/agreement/mutation and other revenue records. Three Members of the Land Evaluation Committee visited the spot on 23.12.2011. The petitioner submitted/shown original registered lease deed to the Land Evaluation Committee. Having perused the original registered documents, the Land Evaluation Committee inspected the spot and awarded 91 marks to the petitioner out of 100 marks under the category "available land". Thereafter, the petitioner was called for interview held on 16.3.2012 at Dehradun. The petitioner attended the interview, however, was awarded zero marks against the available land for establishing/running of the petrol pump. The petitioner made complaint as to why zero

marks were awarded to the petitioner, whereupon inquiry was held and the petitioner was informed that since the photostat copy duly attested by the petitioner along with the application form did not show that lease deed in question was registered, therefore, zero marks were awarded to the petitioner. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of present writ petition.

Undisputedly, respondent nos. 2/3 is Central Government owned Corporation and falls within the definition of "instrumentality of the State" as defined under Article 12 of the Constitution of India. In the considered opinion of this Court, State and instrumentality of the State must act in most transparent manner and should not adopt hyper-technical view either to favour someone or to discard someone.

The peculiar fact of the present case is that the petitioner was the sole applicant and undisputedly lease deed in question was got registered on 18.1.2011. Even if it is presumed that the petitioner submitted only self- attested front side photo copy of the deed along with his application form, it does not mean that lease deed was not registered. Since, the petitioner was the sole applicant, therefore, in all fairness, a fair opportunity ought to have been granted to the petitioner to submit the original lease deed before the Interview Board, which was in fact submitted by the petitioner before the Land Evaluation Committee at the time of spot inspection and was found in order.

It seems that the Interview Board has adopted hyper-technical approach to discard the petitioner. Therefore, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, I direct that if respondent nos. 2 & 3 are not

interested for de novo process for allotment, respondent nos. 2 & 3 shall constitute the Interview Board afresh and case of the petitioner shall be considered afresh and appropriate marks may be awarded to the petitioner in view of the registered lease deed.

Writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms.

Writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms.

(Alok Singh, J.) 19.8.2014 Avneet/