Sibani Shankar Sahoo vs Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. And
2021 Latest Caselaw 12604 Ori

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

                           W.P.(C) No.11769 Of 2019
                            (Through hybrid mode)

        Sibani Shankar Sahoo                    ....             Petitioner

                                               Mr. G.N. Sahu, Advocate

                                    -versus-

        Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. and         ....      Opposite parties
        another
                    Mr. S. Nanda, Advocate for Indian Oil Corporation


                  CORAM: JUSTICE ARINDAM SINHA
                                   ORDER

Order                             07.12.2021
No.

 05.    1.      Mr. Sahu, learned advocate appears on behalf of petitioner and

submits, his client applied for dealership of Retail Outlet (RO) from the oil company. He was successful in the lottery for selection. It is thereafter by impugned communication dated 12th May, 2019, his client's candidature was rejected saying, inter alia, as follows:

"3. However, it is observed that land documents submitted by you are not valid for considering the offered land under Group 1."

He clarifies, with the application his client had submitted notarized lease deed. On being successful in the lottery his client caused registration of the deed and submitted the same.

2. Mr. Nanda, learned advocate appears on behalf of the oil company and draws attention to the application containing petitioner's

// 2 //

declaration on information given therein. He points out, petitioner had given date of the lease deed, then simply notarized, under the column requiring date of registration/mutation. He also points out from information given in the prescribed application form that date of reckoning would be date of the application. At the verification stage this was discovered.

3. He relies on judgment dated 8th September, 2015 in Civil Appeal Nos. 6928-6929 of 2015 ( Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. Swapnil Singh) paragraph-9 quoted below:

"We are unable to accept this contention of learned Counsel for the Respondent. The brochure and the application from clearly require the applicant to have a registered lease deed in her name. What is shown to us is a notarized document and admittedly this document, even though it may have been in existence, was formalised into a lease agreement only on 20th December, 2012 and that was registered on 21st December, 2012. The notarized document, therefore, does not advance the case of the Respondent any further. Therefore, it is quite clear that the Respondent was not eligible on the date of application, i.e., 13th September, 2013. Under the circumstances, we allow those appeals and set aside the order passed by the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court. No. costs."

4. It is clear that petitioner could not fulfil an essential criteria

of having a registered document of lease in respect of offered plot on

date of his application. As such there is no merit in the writ petition.

// 3 //

5. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.

(Arindam Sinha) Judge Sks