Orissa High Court
Smt. Kabita Behera vs Indian Oil Corporation Ltd on 20 September, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.A. No.329 of 2014
Smt. Kabita Behera .... Appellant
Mr. Ashok Mohanty, Senior Advocate
-versus-
Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., .... Respondents
Bhubaneswar and another
Mr. Pitambar Acharya, Senior Advocate
for Respondent No.1 and
Mr. S.S. Padhy, Advocate for Respondent No.2
W.P.(C) No.21568 of 2016
Amit Kumar Lohani .... Petitioner
Mr. S.S. Padhy, Advocate
-versus-
Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., .... Opposite Party
Bhubaneswar
Mr. Pitambar Acharya, Senior Advocate
CORAM:
THE CHIEF JUSTICE
JUSTICE CHITTARANJAN DASH
ORDER
Order No. 20.09.2022
W.A. No.329 of 2014
13. 1. The challenge in the present appeal is to a judgment dated 28th
July 2014 of the learned Single Judge dismissing the Appellant's
W.P.(C) No.20066 of 2010.
2. The Appellant applied under the Rajiv Gandhi Gramin LPG
Vitrak (Liquefied Petroleum Gas/Cooking Gas) (Scheme) for a
distributorship for Jhumpura in Keonjhar District in the 'open
category'. Pursuant to the said application made on 30th
December 2009, the Appellant was asked to participate in the
draw of lottery on 28th May, 2010. On 9th November 2010, while
other Applicants were asked to participate in the re-draw of the
lottery on 30th November 2010, the Appellant was not given any
such intimation. Questioning the said decision, the writ petition
was filed by the Appellant.
3. In the counter affidavit filed in the writ petition, it was
pointed out by the Respondent Indian Oil Corporation Limited
(IOCL) that among the reasons for the Appellant not being
selected was that she did not own the land which was offered for
operating the distributorship. Although in the application form,
she claimed that she was the owner of the land and gave the date
of a registered sale deed as 15th December 2009, on verification,
it transpired that it was only a lease deed and on the ground that
in terms of the applicable guidelines, the Appellant was found
not eligible.
4. The learned Single Judge has upheld the decision of the IOCL
holding that the Appellant had to have "clear ownership title of
the property in the name of the Applicant/family member of the
family unit as defined in the multiple dealership/distributorship
norm." The learned Single Judge further found that by declaring
that she was the owner of the land in the application form, the
Appellant had misrepresented facts. Accordingly, the writ
petition was dismissed.
5. This Court has heard the submissions of Mr. Ashok Mohanty,
learned Senior Counsel for the Appellant, Mr. Pitambar
Acharya, learned Senior Counsel for the Respondent-IOCL and
Mr. S.S. Padhy, learned counsel appearing for the successful
candidate-Respondent No.2.
6. Mr. Mohanty draws attention to the verification sheet
prepared by the Office of the IOCL on scrutinizing the
Appellant's application where in the relevant remarks column it
is acknowledged that what the Appellant had a registered lease
deed. According to him, in terms of Section 109 of the Transfer
of Property Act 1882, as long as there was a long-term lease,
which in this case was for 40 years, all the rights of the original
owner would be available to the 'transferee' and therefore it was
as good as the Appellant being the owner of the land in question.
7. Mr. Acharya, on the other hand, refers to the applicable norms
published by IOCL in a Brochure applicable to the selection of
Distributors which required the Applicant to be the owner of the
land being offered for the distributorship.
8. There is merit in the contention of Mr. Acharya that the
verification report was an internal document prepared by the
office of IOCL and did not confer a right on the Appellant to
contend that short of ownership even a land obtained under a
lease for a period of more than fifteen years would satisfy that
requirement. The specific clause in the published norms of the
IOCL as set out in its Brochure reads as under:
"4. Common Eligibility Criteria for all Categories:
xxx xxx xxx
(g) own a suitable land (plot) of minimum 20 metre X
24 metre in dimension at the advertised RGGLV
location for construction of LPG cylinder Storage
Godown.
Own means having clear ownership title of the
property in the name of applicant/family member of
the 'Family Unit' as defined in multiple
dealership/distributorship norm. In case of
ownership/co-ownership by family member, consent
letter from the family member will be required.
Land for construction of Godown will be considered
suitable, if it is freely accessible through all weather
motorable approach road (public road or private road
of the applicant connecting to the public road) and
should be plain, in one contiguous plot, free from live
overhead power transmission or telephone lines.
Pipelines/Canals/Drainage/Nallahs should not be
passing through the plot."
9. With there being no ambiguity about what the requirement
was, the Appellant could not have possibly pressed for her
candidature only on the basis of her registered lease deed
notwithstanding that the period of lease may have been more
than 15 years for the land in question.
10. Consequently, the Court is unable to find any error in the
impugned judgment of the learned Single that calls for any
interference. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.
W.P.(C) No.21568 of 2016
11. In view of averments made in para-4 of the counter affidavit
of IOCL that the advertisement was on account of a mistake, no
further direction needs to be issued in the present writ petition
and it is disposed of as such.
(Dr. S. Muralidhar)
Chief Justice
(Chittaranjan Dash)
Judge
S. K. Guin/M. Panda
