Priyada Priyadarsini Das vs General Manager
2023 Latest Caselaw 9283 Ori

           ORISSA HIGH COURT : C U T T A C K
                        W.P.(C) NO.18716 OF 2017
                    An application under Articles 226 & 227 of
                         the Constitution of India.


Priyada Priyadarsini Das                                : Petitioner

                                   -Versus-

General Manager, Indian Oil Corporation,
Bhubaneswar & ors.                                      : Opp. Parties



       For Petitioner                     : M/s.M.Kanungo, Sr.Adv.,
                                            Mr.B.N.Mohapatra, D.N.Pattnaik
                                            & M.Mishra


       For O.Ps.                          : M/s.P.Acharya, Sr.Adv.,
                                            S.Rath, A.Satapathy & G.Patra

                                   JUDGMENT

CORAM :

JUSTICE BISWANATH RATH

Date of Hearing & Judgment : 16.08.2023

1. This Writ Petition involves the following prayer :-

"It is, therefore, prayed that let this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to issue rule NISI by calling upon the Opp.Parties to show cause as to why the selection of the petitioner should not be and the Gramin Vitarak, LPG distributorship should be awarded to her.

If the Opp.Parties fail to show cause/show insufficient cause directing the Opp.Parties to appoint the petitioner in Gramin Vitarak,

// 2 //

LPG, distributorship for Ayatpur, Danduasipada, Brahmanibadi, in the district of Cuttack.

And further be pleased to issue any other writ/writs. Pass any other order/orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem just and proper in the eye of law.."

2. This matter was entertained by issuing of notice on the

Opposite Parties by order of this Court dated 22.9.2017, however with

interim protection to the extent directing O.Ps.1 to 3 not to issue LOI or

create any 3rd party interest with respect to the Gas Agency Under the

Gramin Vitarak Scheme in Annexure-4 issued by the Opp.Party No.2

without the leave of the Court. This order is continuing as on date.

3. Undisputed factual background involves, the Opposite Parties

issued an advertisement published on 16.11.2016 in different newspapers

regarding appointment of Distributorship under Gramin Vitarak Scheme

in the location of Ayatpur, Brahmanabadi, Danduasipada in the district of

Cuttack. Copies of such advertisement and the guidelines appear at

Annexure-1 & 2. The Petitioner claims to have applied pursuant to

Annexure-1, vide Annexure-3. The Petitioner has pleading that she since

found eligible in the draw of lots and was issued with a letter disclosing

her selection for Gramin Vitarak LPG Distributor location at Ayatpur,

Danduasipada and Brahmanigaon under Ayatpur Gram Panchayat in

Cuttack Sadar Block in the district of Cuttack, vide Annexure-4. The

Petitioner claims to have responded to such letter by providing necessary

// 3 //

documents at Annexure-5 to 8. In reference to Annexure-9, the Petitioner

contends that she has been communicated with land offer for construction

of show room in the advertised location as required for Gramin Vitarak

Distributorship also provided with an opportunity for submitting any

alternative land but in the particular locality.

4. Bringing the Writ Petition, the Petitioner while not disclosing

as to if she has attended to Annexure-9 or not but has brought through

Annexure-10 & 11 establishing that she was selected for the advertised

location and for the direction of the Company to deposit money, vide

their letter dated 14.7.2017. Vide Annexure-12 the Petitioner submitted

different documents to hold this case and in the meantime on 1.9.2017 the

Petitioner also made a representation appearing at Annexure-13 in an

attempt to establish her right to be considered under the plea taken

therein. The Petitioner moved this Court as indicated herein above.

Notice has been issued to the Opp.Parties along with interim direction as

indicated herein above also.

5. The Opp.Parties in the meantime have also brought their

counter affidavit disputing the claim of the Petitioner.

6. Mr.M.Kanungo, learned senior counsel for the Petitioner in

the above factual background and particularly keeping in view the interim

// 4 //

direction of this Court presses hard for providing at least a suitable plot

for her consideration pursuant to the advertisement involved herein.

7. After commencement of hearing, a coordinate Bench of this

Court on 9.2.2022 recorded the submission of the Petitioner drawing

attention to the letter dated 9th August, 2017 that the land offer was

rejected by the Oil Company and further recorded the intention of the

Petitioner that she is ready and willing to offer alternative land within the

advertised location. Keeping in view of such submission of the Petitioner

in the same proceeding, this Court came to observe to have provided

seven days' time to Mr.P.Acharya, learned senior counsel appearing for

the Oil Company for furnishing objection to the claim of the Petitioner on

the ground that though the Petitioner was provided with an opportunity in

the letter dated 9th August, 2017, if the Petitioner failed in providing

alternative details. The proceeding was postponed with observation

directing the Oil Company to consider and issue instruction. In the

proceeding on 29.3.2022 in the said Bench having no further assignment,

the matter was delisted to be placed before the assigned Bench. On

21.7.2023 this matter was listed before this Court and again on 28.7.2023,

on which date on reiteration of the offer arrived in favour of the Petitioner

through Annexure-9 while keeping also in view that there operates

interim order, Mr.P.Acharya, learned senior counsel sought time to take

// 5 //

instruction in the matter. Today on commencement of hearing of the

proceeding, Mr.Acharya, learned senior counsel brought to the notice of

this Court the additional affidavit on behalf of O.P.2 disclosing at

Paragraphs-3 & 5 as follows :-

"3. That when the WP(C) No.18716/2017 was listed for hearing the Hon'ble Court vide order dated 8.8.2023 was pleased to seek following clarification from the Opp.Parties :

1. After entering into threadbare argument by both the learned senior Advocates, this Court finds, the following question requires to be answered by this Court :-

"If offer given through Annexure-9 to the petitioner is still open to be considered as on date, while also keeping in view the interim direction in operation is passed on the entertainment of the writ petition ?

5. That there were in total seven eligible applicants including the Petitioner for the said LPG distributorship. The Petitioner notwithstanding the fact that she did not possess the land at the advertised location on the given date is turning around and is giving fresh offer after a period of 6 years from the date of advertisement. It is pertinent to state here that LPG is an essential commodity to cater to the need the local people for cooking, the Opp.Party Corporation has taken a conscious decision for opening of the LPG distributorship at the advertised location Ayatpur, Danduasipada, Brambanbadi, Dist.-Cuttack, after examination of the viability, feasibility and also the need of the general public in the advertised location. The Petitioner having not satisfied the primary eligibility condition ( to provide showroom land at the advertised location), it is humbly prayed that the Hon'ble Court may go slow to interfere with selection process in a writ petition filed at the instance of a disinterested and ineligible person. It is further humbly submitted here that after the rejection of the candidature of the petitioner due process prescribed under the selection brochure shall be followed amongst the remaining eligible applicants for award of the LPG distributorship at the advertised location."

8. In course of hearing, this Court records the statement of

Mr.M.Kanungo, learned senior counsel for the Petitioner that his Client is

// 6 //

not given further opportunity pursuant to Annexure-9. This Court takes

note of the condition of Annexure-9, which is as follows :-

"This land offered for construction of showroom is not in the advertised location as required for GRAMIN VITRAK Distributorship.

You are hereby requested to submit land details if you are having any alternate land details in your name/member(s) of the family unit as per the definition of family unit for land of the applicant with date of registration on or before the last date for submission of application as specified either in the advertisement or corrigendum (i.e. 03/02/2017).

The applicant should have ownership as defined under the term 'Own' above in the name of applicant/member of "Family Unit" (as defined in multiple dealership/distributorship norm of eligibility criteria)/parents (includes Step Father/Step Mother), grandparents (both maternal and paternal), Brother/Sister (including Step Brother & Step Sister), Son/Daughter (including Step Son/Step Daughter), Son-in-Law of the applicant or the spouse (in case of married applicant) as on last date for submission of application as specified either in the advertisement or corrigendum (if any). In case of ownership/co-ownership by family member(s) as given above, consent in the form of a declaration from the family member(s) will be required.

Please submit details within 7 days from the receipt of the letter. In case of non-receipt of any information from your side, it will be assumed that you don't have any alternate land to offer."

9. In reading of Annexure-9, there is clear disclosure permitting

the Petitioner seven days' time from the date of receipt of the letter and

the Petitioner was required to provide alternate land details for

considering her case following the advertisement involved. For there is

clear statement of Mr.Kanungo, learned senior counsel for the Petitioner

that his Client has not given any further offer to consider her case except

submitting a representation, vide Annexure-13 in justification of the land

// 7 //

already offered for being considered pursuant to the advertisement

involved herein. This Court at this stage considering the objection of

O.P.2 that even though the Petitioner did not respond the offer provided

by Annexure-9, there are at least seven candidates found to be eligible

and waiting for outcome on the advertisement involved herein, for which

a decision is to be taken the moment the interim order of this Court is

vacated.

10. This Court here finds, there are eligible candidates available

and waiting for final decision pursuant to the advertisement involved. The

Petitioner undisputedly failed in responding to the providing to offer

within the time frame. In no circumstance, the Petitioner is entitled to be

given so much opportunity reviving her case, particularly when her offer

of land does find suitable in terms of the advertisement, several eligible

candidates already available with their land in the particular locality.

Further on the submission of Mr.M.Kanungo, learned senior counsel for

the Petitioner to consider the land already offered for the purpose, this

Court finds, in similar situation, this Court itself has taken decision on the

selfsame issue in W.P.(C) No.2137/2015 decided on 21.4.2023 against

the claim of the Petitioner. The decision of this Court in W.P.(C)

No.2137/2015 (Dillip Kumar Bal vrs. Indian Oil corporation Ltd.), vide

judgment dated 21.4.2023 squarely applies to the case at hand. This Court

// 8 //

finds, there is no justifiable reason to interfere with the impugned action

of the Opp.Parties.

11. The Writ Petition thus stands dismissed. No cost.

(Biswanath Rath) Judge

Orissa High Court, Cuttack.

The 16th August, 2023/M.K.Rout, A.R.-cum-Sr.Secy.

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: MANOJ KUMAR ROUT Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 21-Aug-2023 15:03:16