Shri Ngalheiba Leishangthem vs Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.
2021 Latest Caselaw 354 Mani

KABORA Digitally signed
MBAM by KABORAMBAM

SANDEE SANDEEP    SINGH
        Date: 2021.12.21                                                                             Item No.7

P SINGH 16:56:05 -08'00'
                                                                                  (Through Video Conferencing)
                                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
                                                AT IMPHAL

                                         WRIT APPEAL NO. 69 OF 2021

                             Shri Ngalheiba Leishangthem, aged about 51 years old,
                             s/o. L. Joychandra Singh, a resident of Uripok Polem
                             Leikai, P.O. Imphal, P.S. Imphal, Imphal West District,
                             Manipur-795001.

                                                                                          ..... Appellant

                                                          Vs.
                       1. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., through the Chairman, Indian Oil
                            Corporation Ltd., G-9, Ali Yavar Jung Marg, Bandra (East),
                            Mumbai - 400051 (India).

                       2. The Chief Divisional Retail Sales Manager, Indian Oil
                            Corporation Ltd., Imphal Divisional Office, Congress
                            Bhavan, B.T. Road, P.O. & P.S. Imphal, Imphal West
                            District, Manipur - 795001.
                                                                                    ...... Respondents
                                                 BEFORE
                              HON'BLETHE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. SANJAY KUMAR
                                HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.V. MURALIDARAN

              For the Appellant                :    Mr. H.S. Paonam, Senior Advocate.
              For the Respondents              :    Mr. L. Shashibhushan, Advocate.

              Date of Order/Judgment           :    17.12.2021.

                                               JUDGMENT (ORAL)

(Sanjay Kumar, CJ) The unsuccessful petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 987 of 2019 is in

appeal, aggrieved by the dismissal of his case by a learned Judge of this

Court, vide order dated 10/11/2021.

Page 1

2. Heard Mr. H.S. Paonam, learned senior counsel, appearing

for the appellant; and Mr. L. Shashibhushan, learned counsel for the

respondent Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.

3. The controversy in this case revolves around the 'Notice for

appointment of Regular/Rural Retail Outlet (Petrol Pump) Dealerships'

published on 25/11/2018 by the Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., in so far as it

pertained to the location at Sl. No. 33 - 'Lamsang on either side of Uripok

Kangchup Road (5 KM from Lamsang Bridge towards Kangchup)'. The

appellant applied for award of the dealership at this location and was initially

selected in the draw of lots held on 02/07/2019. However, in November,

2019, he was informed that the Evaluation Committee visited the site offered

by him and found that it did not meet the required norms prescribed in the

advertisement. It is an admitted fact that the site offered by the appellant is

at a distance of about 6.5. kilometers from Lamsang Bridge towards

Kangchup.

4. Mr. H.S. Paonam, learned senior counsel, would contend that

there was no prescription in the Notice that the site offered should be within

5 kilometers from Lamsang Bridge towards Kangchup and that the

specification therein reads to the effect that the minimum distance at which

the offered site should be located is beyond 5 kilometers. He would point out

that, for the locations at Sl. Nos. 14, 18, 21 and 22 in the subject Notice, it

was clearly indicated that the offered site should be 'within' a particular

Page 2 distance but there was no such condition in so far as the subject location at

Sl. No.33 is concerned.

5. Having considered this contention, we are not persuaded to

agree with the learned senior counsel. His entire argument rests upon the

fact that the word 'within' was not used in relation to the subject location by

stating that the site offered should be within 5 kilometers from Lamsang

Bridge towards Kangchup. However, the interpretation sought to be placed

on the absence of this word by the learned senior counsel leads to completely

illogical consequences. If the argument is to be accepted that the offered site

should be beyond 5 kilometers and not within 5 kilometers, it would mean

that the site could be located at any distance beyond 5 kilometers, as there

is no specification of a maximum distance. This would lead to a ridiculous

situation where a person whose site is even 100 kilometers beyond Lamsang

Bridge could assert that his site should be treated as a suitable one!

The Indian Oil Corporation could have used a little more

finesse in specifying the location of the offered site by using the word 'within'

in respect of this location also, as was done with the other locations, but it's

failure to do so cannot lend logical support to the rather farfetched argument

advanced by the learned senior counsel. We therefore find no grounds to

interfere with the order of the learned Judge holding to the effect that the

petitioner's offered site did not conform to the prescribed norms, being

situated beyond the stipulated distance from Lamsang Bridge.

Page 3 The writ appeal is therefore devoid of merit and is

accordingly dismissed.

In the circumstances, we make no order as to costs.

A copy of this order shall be supplied online or through

whatsapp to the learned counsel for the parties.

            JUDGE                                        CHIEF JUSTICE
bidya




                                                                      Page 4