Delhi High Court
Kavita vs Indian Oil Corporation Ltd & Anr on 29 August, 2018
$~49
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 29th August, 2018
+ LPA 496/2018, CM No. 35177/2018 (stay)
KAVITA ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Gaurang Kanth, Adv.
versus
INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD & ANR ..... Respondents
Through: Ms.Malanarayan, Adv. with Ms.Neha
Dawak & Ms.Madhumanti Ghosh, Advs. for R-
1/IOCL
Mohd. Sajid, Adv. for R-2
CORAM:
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO
JUDGMENT
Rajendra Menon, Chief Justice (Oral)
C.Ms.No.35178-79/2018 (exemptions)
Allowed, subject to all just exceptions
LPA 496/2018
1. Seeking exception to an order passed by the writ Court on 14.08.2018
in the matter of allotment of retail outlet to Scheduled Caste/Scheduled
Tribe Letter of Intent (LOI) holders, the petitioner has filed the present
appeal. The learned writ Court having dismissed the writ petition, the
petitioner is before this Court. Various averments are made in this appeal
and we find that the learned writ Court in detail has adverted to various
submissions. The only dispute was as to whether the allotment in question
has to be made by determining the seniority inter se between the allottees on
the basis of the date of interview or the date on which the LOI was issued.
2. The learned writ Court found that the allotment based on the date of
interview, as canvassed by the petitioner, is not a feasible or proper method.
Determination of seniority based on the date of issuance of LOI was found
to be more appropriate by the writ Court and, therefore, the learned Court
disposed of the writ directing the allotment based on seniority with regard to
issue of LOI.
3. It is the grievance of the petitioner that in case of the petitioner,
because of procedural irregularities, there had been delay in issuance of LOI
and the delay being not attributable to the petitioner, the petitioner's right
could not be taken away because of administrative delay on the part of the
authorities in only issuing the LOI after a period of more than 145 days. It
was argued that the LOI has to be issued within a particular time frame, that
is, within 10-15 days of conduct of the interview and in case of the
petitioner, the administrative delay was occasioned because of the
respondent company and the petitioner is made to suffer in view of this.
4. We find that from para-11 onwards, the learned writ Court has
examined all these issues and in para-12.1, 12.2, 12.3 and 13, the issue has
been dealt with in the following manner:-
12.1 It is possible that the committee so constituted, is unable
to hold interviews of all candidates on a given date. Therefore,
merely, because interviews are held on different dates and
results are declared thereafter, perhaps, on separate dates,
would also not offer, a satisfactory criterion. The only reason
that Mr. Kanth suggests that the date when the interviews were
held and the results declared was a better criterion is because
the petitioner's interview was held on 21.7.2004, whereas the
interview of respondent No.2 was held on 6.8.2004.
12.2 However, what Mr. Kanth forgets is that respondent No.2
had filed his application for allotment of retail outlet with IBP,
prior to its merger with IOCL.
12.3 Therefore, while respondent no.2's interview was held
later, fortuitously, the LOI, in his case, was issued on a date
earlier to that when IOCL issued the LOI in favour of the
petitioner. The LOI, as indicated above, was issued on
31.8.2004 in favour of respondent no.2 while, IOCL issued the
LOI in favour of the petitioner on 30.9.2004.
13. No doubt, the period of delay, as Mr. Kanth says, between
the holding of interviews and the declaration of results and
hence issuance of LOI, is not uniform, but the reasons for delay
are not available on record.
5. The learned writ Court finally came to the conclusion that the criteria
adopted by the respondent company for determination of seniority in
accordance with the date of issuance of LOI is a reasonable one and thought
it appropriate to dismiss the writ petition.
6. In our considered view, the factors that weighed with the learned writ
Court for doing so cannot be termed as unreasonable or illegal to such an
extent that interference into the matter now by this Court is called for, as it is
a reasonable one in the facts and circumstances of the case.
7. Finding no error in the impugned order passed by the learned writ
Court, we dismiss the appeal along with the pending application.
CHIEF JUSTICE
V. KAMESWAR RAO, J
AUGUST 29, 2018/'anb'
