Pam Sushil Thangjam Premavani ... vs The Bharat Petroleum Corporation ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 382 Mani

                                                                          Page |1



                              IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
                                        AT IMPHAL

SHAMURAILAT                           WP(C) No. 50 of 2020

PAM SUSHIL            Thangjam Premavani Chanu, aged 31 about years,
SHARMA                daughter of Th. Subol Meitei, resident of Koirengei

Date:
                      Maning Leikai, P.O. Mantripukhri, P.S. Heingang &
                      District Imphal East, Manipur, 795002.
2022.08.25                                                     ... .... PETITIONER
11:45:05 +05'30'
                                 - VERSUS -

                   1. The Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited, represented
                      by its Chairman, Bharat Bhavan, 4 and 6 Currimbhoy
                      Road, Ballard Estate, Mumbai-400001,

                   2. The Territorial Manager Retail, Head of Territory Office,
                      Shillong, 1st floor, Nexia Park, Christian Basti, Guwahati,
                      Kamrup Metropolitan District-781005.

                                                           ... ... RESPONDENTS

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.V. MURALIDARAN

For the Petitioners :: Mr. Th. Mahira, Advocate

For the Respondents :: Mr. Boboy Potsangbam, CGSC

Date of Hearing and reserving Judgment & Order :: 20.07.2022

Date of Judgment & Order :: 23.08.2022

WP(C) No. 50 of 2020 Page |2

JUDGMENT AND ORDER (CAV)

By this writ petition, the petitioner seeks to quash

the impugned letter dated 24.11.2019 whereby the candidature

of the petitioner was cancelled and also the advertisement

dated 19.1.2020 calling for application for appointment of retail

outlet in respect of the location Within 3 KM from Sainik School

Imphal towards Lamlong Bazaar under OBC category. The

petitioner also sought direction on the respondents to award

retail outlet (petrol pump) dealership to her at the location within

3 KM from Sainik School Imphal towards Lamlong Bazaar under

OBC category.

2. The case of the petitioner is that pursuant to the

advertisement dated 25.11.2018 inviting applications for

appointment of 59 retail outlet dealers at various locations in the

State of Manipur, the petitioner submitted an application along

with necessary application fee on 20.12.2018 in the OBC

category for awarding retail outlet dealership located at Within

3 KM from Sainik School, Imphal towards Lamlong Bazaar on

Imphal-Pangei Road, District Imphal East. According to the

petitioner, the mode of selection is by draw of lots and lot was

WP(C) No. 50 of 2020 Page |3

held on 20.02.2019 and the petitioner was selected. The

second respondent informed the petitioner that based on draw

of lots for selection, she is declared as selected and requested

the petitioner to remit online Rs.40,000/- towards initial security

deposit and also to submit necessary documents along with

OBC certificate. The petitioner had also paid the amount of

Rs.40,000/- and submitted necessary documents. After

receiving the aforesaid documents, the BPCL's Land Evaluation

Committee visited the site and also verified the area of the land

by taking measurement and informed the petitioner about the

suitability of the land for location of the retail outlet dealership.

3. Further case of the petitioner is that the original

OBC certificate dated 22.12.2018 was lost on the way in

between Koirengei and Mantripukhri, for which she has lodged

a complaint before the Heingang Police Station to trace out the

lost original OBC certificate. The petitioner also informed the

second respondent about the loss of her original OBC certificate

and also the complaint made in that regard. Since the original

OBC certificate was lost, the petitioner could not produce her

original OBC certificate at the time of field verification made by

the officers of BPCL. However, the petitioner has produced her

WP(C) No. 50 of 2020 Page |4

original OBC certificate issued earlier to show the factum that

she is an OBC certificate and she does not belongs to the

Creamy Layer category. But the officers of BPCL insisted the

petitioner to produce the original OBC certificate dated

22.12.2018 as a copy of the said certificate was submitted by

the petitioner earlier. Thereafter, the second respondent wrote

a letter informing the petitioner that her candidature stands

cancelled, as she was not in possession of the caste certificate

on the date of application as declared in the application.

Challenging the same, the petitioner has filed the present writ

petition.

4. The respondents 1 and 2 filed affidavit-in-

opposition stating that the petitioner in her letter dated

22.11.2019 admitted that her OBC certificate dated 22.12.2018

was misplaced and in the contrary, in her application dated

20.12.2018, she misrepresented to the respondents that she

was in possession of the certificate even before it was issued.

This particular aspect leaves no doubt that the petition claiming

for her cause is unfounded and untrue. When the officials of

BPCL made field visit, the petitioner was not in a possession of

the caste certificate on the date of application and, accordingly,

WP(C) No. 50 of 2020 Page |5

her candidature stood cancelled. Therefore, the petitioner has

no right to challenge the cancellation letter and, thus prayed for

dismissal of the writ petition.

5. Assailing the impugned letter and the

advertisement for appointment of retail outlet dealership of

Within 3 KM from Sainik School Imphal towards Lamlong

Bazaar under OBC category, Mr. Th. Mahira, the learned

counsel for the petitioner submitted that since the original OBC

certificate was lost, the petitioner could not produce the same

at the time of the field verification of credential made by the

officers of the BPCL. However, the petitioner has produced her

original OBC certificate issued earlier to show the factum that

she is an OBC candidate, but the officers insisted the original

OBC certificate dated 22.12.2018 as the copy of the said

certificate was submitted by the petitioner earlier. Due to non-

submission of the OBC certificate dated 22.12.2018, the second

respondent cancelled the candidature of the petitioner, which is

arbitrary.

6. Mr. Th. Mahira, the learned counsel further

submitted that after the receipt of the impugned letter, the

petitioner had submitted a representation on 25.11.2019 to the

WP(C) No. 50 of 2020 Page |6

second respondent requesting to review the cancellation order

dated 24.11.2019 as she belongs to OBC category. Without

considering the said representation, the second respondent

issued fresh advertisement calling for application for the retail

outlet Within 3 KM from Sainik School Imphal towards Lamlong

Bazaar under OBC category. The act of the second respondent

is highly condemnable. Thus, a prayer is made to set aside the

impugned letter and the advertisement dated 19.1.2020 and to

direct the respondent authorities to award dealership to the

petitioner in respect of the retail outlet Within 3 KM from Sainik

School Imphal towards Lamlong Bazaar under OBC category.

7. Per contra, Mr. Boboy Potsangbam, the learned

CGSC for the respondents submitted that the petitioner was not

in possession of the OBC certificate which was filed on the date

of application. He would submit that the date of application of

the petitioner is on 20.12.2018 and the OBC certificate alleged

to be lost is dated 22.12.2018, which will prove that on

20.12.2018, the petitioner is not having valid OBC certificate.

The claim of the petitioner stood cancelled because of her own

action and fault cannot be attributed on the respondents. Thus,

a prayer is made to dismiss the writ petition.

WP(C) No. 50 of 2020 Page |7

8. This Court considered the rival submissions and

also perused the materials available on record.

9. There is no dispute that the BPCL issued an

advertisement on 25.11.2018 inviting applications for

appointment of 59 retail outlet dealers at various locations in the

State of Manipur and the petitioner has submitted her

application on 20.12.2018 in the OBC category for awarding

dealership located at Within 3 KM from Sainik School Imphal

towards Lamlong Bazaar under OBC category. There is also

no dispute that the petitioner was declared as selected and she

had remitted Rs.40,000/- towards initial security deposit and

also submitted necessary documents along with OBC

certificate.

10. According to the respondents, when the officials of

the BPCL made field verification, the petitioner has failed to

produce the original OBC certificate dated 22.12.2018. Thus,

on the date of submitting application on 20.12.2018, the

petitioner is not having the OBC certificate. Therefore, the

candidature of the petitioner was rightly cancelled.

WP(C) No. 50 of 2020 Page |8

11. It appears that after issuance of the impugned

letter dated 24.11.2019, the petitioner has submitted a

representation to the second respondent on 25.11.2019. The

contents of the representation dated 25.11.2019 reads thus:

"I am in receipt of your E-mail dated 24/11/2019 wherein my candidate for the aforesaid location has been cancelled on the ground that the during Field Verification of Credentials I failed to produce the original document of the caste certificate on the date of application as declared in the application.

I am to state that, I had applied for the aforesaid location reserved for OBC category against the original OBC certificate issued by the concerned authority on 20/11/2014 but the same was untraceable till I found it recently, during the period the aforesaid original certificate remained untraceable I applied for a duplicate copy of the OBC certificate and obtained a duplicate copy of the same on 22/12/2018 which was produced by me and accepted by the concerned official at the time of submission of the documents after the declaration of the result of the draw of lots for the said location but the same was also lost for which I had lodged a complaint

WP(C) No. 50 of 2020 Page |9

with the concerned authority of the Police for which the concerned Officer in Charge of the Police Station have issued dated a certificate 23/04/2019 certifying the same and as such I could not produce neither the Original OBC certificate dated 20/11/2014 nor the duplicate copy of the OBC Certificate dated 22/12/2018 on the date of the FVC which was conducted on 22/11/2019.

I am to submit that I belong to the OBC category as will be shown by the OBC certificate dated 20/11/2014 and my declaration on oath before the Oath Commissioner dated 19/12/2018 and same cannot be denied by any authority including the BPCL further I am ready and willing to produce the aforesaid OBC certificate dated 20/11/2014 whenever directed to do so and as such I am to request you to review the order dated 24.11.2019 cancelling my candidature for award of RO dealership at Within 3 KM from Sainik School Imphal towards Lamlong Bazaar under OBC category for the ends of justice."

12. From the representation of the petitioner dated

25.11.2019, it is clear that the OBC certificate dated 22.12.2018

WP(C) No. 50 of 2020 P a g e | 10

referred by the petitioner while applying is copy of the OBC

certificate dated 20.11.2014 issued to her.

13. On a perusal of the OBC certificates annexed to

the writ petition, this Court finds that the OBC certificate dated

20/11/2014 is the original, which was issued by the Additional

District Magistrate, Imphal Porompat, East District, Manipur.

The certificate dated 22.12.2018 is the copy which was issued

by the Addl. Deputy Commissioner/ADM, Imphal East and the

Sub-Divisional Officer/SDM, Porompat, Imphal East after

putting counter-sign.

14. According to the petitioner, since the certificate

dated 20.11.2014 was lost, she obtained the OBC certificate

dated 22.12.2018 which was only produced at the time of

applying the application. Since the said certificate dated

22.12.2018 was lost, she obtained copy of the same on

28.11.2019. On 30.11.2019, during field inspection when the

petitioner was not able to produce the OBC certificate dated

22.12.2018, her candidature was cancelled.

15. In order to appreciate the case of the petitioner,

the following dates and events are necessary:

WP(C) No. 50 of 2020
                                                       P a g e | 11



                       Dates                 Events

             25.11.2018        : Advertisement        inviting
                                 applications
             20.12.2018        : Online application submitted
                                 by the petitioner

             09.02.2019        : Second respondent declared
                                 the petitioner as qualified for
                                 draw of lots for selection of
                                 the retail outlet dealership

             20.02.2019        : Draw of lots held and
                                 declared the petitioner was
                                 successful candidate

             24.02.2019        : Request of the second
                                 respondent to remit online
                                 Rs.40,000/- towards initial
                                 security deposit
             26.02.2019        : Initial Security Deposit of
                                 Rs.40,000/- paid

             28.08.2019        : Letter addressed by the
                                 second respondent that the
                                 visit of land evaluation
                                 committee on 10.09.2019.

             10.09.2019        : BPCL's Land Evaluation
                                 Committee visited the site
                                 offered by the petitioner.

             19.11.2019        : Second            respondent
                                 addressed a letter informing
                                 the petitioner that field
                                 verification of credential of
                                 the details given by the
                                 petitioner     would       be
                                 conducted on 30.11.2019.

             30.11.2019        : The petitioner was informed
                                 that she had failed to




WP(C) No. 50 of 2020
                                                                 P a g e | 12



                                         produce        the    original
                                         documents for verification by
                                         the officers of the BPCL.

16. From the above dates and events, it is clear that

as on the date of application i.e. on 20.12.2018, the petitioner

was possessing the OBC certificate dated 22.12.2018, which

was the copy of the original OBC certificate issued on

20.11.2014 issued to her. According to the petitioner, the

certificate dated 22.12.2018 was lost on the way in between

Koirengei to Mantripukhri on 20.04.2019 i.e. in between the

date of deposit of initial security deposit and the filed

verification. Qua the loss of OBC certificate dated 22.12.2018,

the petitioner lodged a complaint before the Heingang Police

Station and the Officer-in-charge of the said Police Station has

issued certificate dated 23.4.2019. The said certificate reads

thus:

"This is to certify that one Thangjam Premavani Chanu D/O Th. Subol Meitei of Koirengei Thongkhong, Imphal East lodged a written report to OC HNG-PS stating that her original OBC Certificate bearing Sl.No.2773/OBC/ SDO/P/2018 issued by Deputy Commissioner Imphal East was lost on

WP(C) No. 50 of 2020 P a g e | 13

the way in between Koirengei to Mantripukhri on 20th April, 2019 and untraced till date despite of his best efforts to trace out the same.

In this regards, an inquiry has been made into the matter by this police station vide G.D. entry No.32/HNG-PS/2019 of dated 23rd April, 2019 and found genuine and the same is not trace till date.

She is not related to me."

17. It appears that at the time of field verification on

30.11.2019, the petitioner informed the officials of BPCL about

the loss of the OBC certificate dated 22.12.2018 and lodging of

the complaint. It also appears that the loss of OBC certificate

dated 22.12.2018 was informed by the petitioner to the second

respondent two days before the field verification by way of letter

dated 22.12.2018. The aforesaid facts would reveal that the

plea of the respondent authorities that on the date of application

i.e. on 20.12.2018, the petitioner misrepresented that she was

in possession of the OBC certificate is incorrect. On the other

hand, the petitioner has established that on the date of

application she was in possession of the OBC certificate dated

WP(C) No. 50 of 2020 P a g e | 14

22.12.2018 which was subsequently lost on 20.4.2019 for which

a police complaint was lodged and the police concerned stated

that the same is not traced out till the date of issuance of the

certificate dated 23.4.2019.

18. The reason for cancelling the candidature of the

petitioner is on the ground that the petitioner was not in

possession of the caste certificate on the date of application as

declared in the application. The aforesaid reason is unfounded

and the second respondent ought not to have taken such

decision. In fact, the officials of BPCL ought to have given an

opportunity or chance to the petitioner to produce the copy of

the caste certificate duly obtained from the authority concerned.

In the case on hand, the officials of BPCL failed to give such

opportunity to the petitioner and erred in informing the petitioner

that during field verification the petitioner failed to produce the

original documents for verification. Thus, the impugned letter

dated 24.11.2019 holding that the petitioner was not in

possession of the caste certificate on the date of application is

erroneous.

19. Admittedly, after issuance of the impugned order

dated 24.11.2019, the petitioner has submitted a representation

WP(C) No. 50 of 2020 P a g e | 15

on 25.11.2019 and the same has not been considered till date.

However, the respondent BPCL issued an advertisement dated

19.01.2020 inviting online applications for appointment of retail

outlet dealership at different locations, including the location at

Within 3 KM from Sainik School Imphal towards Lamlong

Bazaar under OBC category.

20. It appears that by the interim order dated

22.01.2020, this Court directed that the advertisement dated

19.01.2020 in respect of the location at Within 3 KM from Sainik

School Imphal towards Lamlong Bazaar under OBC category

shall remain suspended till the next date. By the order dated

07.02.2020, the said interim was extended until further orders.

Thus, as on date, the interim order in respect of the retail outlet

located at Within 3 KM from Sainik School Imphal towards

Lamlong Bazaar under OBC category is operating.

21. For the foregoing discussions, this Court is of the

view that the impugned letter dated 24.11.2019 cancelling the

candidature of the petitioner at the location Within 3 KM from

Sainik School Imphal towards Lamlong Bazaar under OBC

category and the fresh advertisement dated 19.1.2020 in

respect of the location at Within 3 KM from Sainik School Imphal

WP(C) No. 50 of 2020 P a g e | 16

towards Lamlong Bazaar under OBC category are liable to the

set aside.

22.            In fine,


               (i)     The writ petition is allowed.

               (ii)    The       impugned      letter       dated

                       24.11.2019       and        the      fresh

                       advertisement dated 19.1.2020 in

respect of the retail outlet located

within 3 KM from Sainik School

Imphal towards Lamlong Bazaar

under OBC category stand quashed.

(iii) The respondent authorities are

directed to consider to award the

retail outlet (petrol pump) dealership

at the location within 3 KM from

Sainik School Imphal towards

Lamlong Bazaar under OBC category

to the petitioner.

               (iv)    The petitioner is directed to produce

                       a copy of the OBC certificate dated

                       28.11.2019     said    to   have     been




WP(C) No. 50 of 2020
                                                                   P a g e | 17



                       obtained      after    passing       of     the

                       impugned order within ten days from

                       the date of receipt of a copy of this

                       order      before       the    respondent

authorities for awarding dealership on

the undertaking that she will produce

the OBC certificate dated

22.12.2018, which was referred to by

the petitioner while submitting the

application dated 20.12.2018, as and

when traced out.

(v) Upon receipt of the copy of the OBC

certificate, the respondent authorities

are directed to complete the exercise

within a period of four weeks

thereafter.

               (vi)    No costs.




                                                             JUDGE

     FR/NFR

   Sushil




WP(C) No. 50 of 2020