Rakesh Kumar Sah vs The Union Of India And Ors
2023 Latest Caselaw 3998 Patna

         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                      Letters Patent Appeal No.1481 of 2017
                                          In
                   Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.7321 of 2015
     ======================================================

Rakesh Kumar Sah, Son of Gajendra Prasad Sah, Resident of Village- Roshana Bazar, P.O. and P.S.-Pranpur, District-Katihar.

... ... Appellant/s Versus

1. The Union Of India through the Secretary Department of Petroleum and Natural Gas

2. The Secretary, Department of Petroleum and Narural Gas, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi.

3. The Indian Oil Corporation, Limited, Corporate Office, lot No. 3079/3, Sadia Nagar, J.B. Tito Marg,

4. The Chairman, Indian Oil Corporation, Limited, Corporate Office, lot No. 3079/3, Sadia Nagar, J.B.

5. The Director Marketing, Indian Oil Corporation Limited, G-9, Ali Yavar Jung Marg, Bandra East, M

6. The General Manager, Indian Oil Corporation Limited Marketing Division, Bihar State Office, Loknayak

7. The Senior Divisional Sales Manager, Indian Oil Corporation Limited, Marketing Division, Begusarai

8. The Manager Refinery Coordination Barauni Marketing Terminal, Indian Oil Corporation Limited Mark eting division

9. The State of Bihar through the District Magistrate, Katihar.

10. The District Magistrate, Katihar.

11. The Deputy Collector Land Reforms, Katihar.

12. The Circle Officer, Pranpur, District-Katihar.

13. Sri Satish Prasad, the then Circle Officer, Pranpur, District-Katiahr.

14. Sri Binod Kumar Gupta, Son of Rameshwar Lal Gupta, Resident of Village-

Mahadeopur P.O. Mahadeopur, Police Station-Pranpur, District-Katihar.

15. Sri Jeewan Lal Agarwal, Sono f Biseshwar Lal Agarwal, Resident of Village-Mahadeopur, P.O. Mahadeopur, Police Station-Pranpur, District- Katihar.

... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== with Letters Patent Appeal No. 1506 of 2017 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.9456 of 2015 ====================================================== Jiwan Lal Agrawal son of Late Biseshwar Lal Agrawal resident of village P.O. Mahadevpur, P.S. Pranpur, District Katihar. Patna High Court L.P.A No.1481 of 2017 dt.24-08-2023

... ... Appellant/s Versus

1. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.

2. The Chairman Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., Corporate Office, Lot No. 3079/3, Sadia Nagar, J.B. Tito

3. The Director Marketing, Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., Indian Oil Bhawan, G

- 9 , Aliyavar Jung Marg

4. The General Manager, Indian Oil Corporation Ltd Marketing Division, Bihar State Office, Lok Nayak

5. The Chief Manager R.S Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. Bihar State Office, Lok Nayak Jai Prakash Bhawan

6. The Senior Divisional Sales Manager, Indian Oil Corporation Ltd Marketing Division, Begusarai Division

7. The Manager Refinery Coordination, Barauni Marketing Terminal, Indian Oil Corporation Ltd Marketing Division

8. The Circle Officer, Bihar, Patna.

9. Binod Kumar Gupta son of Late Rameshwar Lal Gupta resident of village P.O. - Mahadevpur, P.S. - Pranpur, District - Katihar.

10. Rakesh Kumar Sah S/o Gajendra Prasad Sah resident of Roshana Bazar, P.O. P.S. - Pranpur, Dist - Katihar.

... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

(In Letters Patent Appeal No. 1481 of 2017) For the Appellant/s : Mr.Sanjeev Kumar Mishra, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. Md. Khurshid Alam, AAG-12 For the I.O.C.L. : Mr. Anil Kumar Jha, Sr. Advocate Mr. Sanat Kumar Mishra, Advocate (In Letters Patent Appeal No. 1506 of 2017) For the Appellant/s : Mr.Rajendra Prasad Sah, Advocate For the I.O.C.L. : Mr. Anil Kumar Jha, Sr. Advocate Mr. Sanat Kumar Mishra, Advocate For Respondent No. 14 : Mr. Dharmendra Jha, Advocate Mr. Jitendra Mishra, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE)

Date : 24-08-2023

The appeals arise from an order of the learned Single

Judge refusing to interfere with the decision of the Indian Oil Patna High Court L.P.A No.1481 of 2017 dt.24-08-2023

Corporation (for brevity "Corporation") conferring the right to

carry on a retail outlet on the 14th respondent in CWJC No. 7321

of 2015; the facts of which were referred to in the common

impugned judgment passed, from which we also ascertained the

essential facts.

2. The controversy arose from the appointment of a

dealer, to carry on a retail outlet under the Kisan Sewa Kendra

at Mahadeopur in the district of Katihar. An advertisement was

published by the respondent/ Corporation on 19.08.2011 in a

vernacular newspaper. Four persons participated in the tender

who were the appellants, the 14th respondent and one another

person who has not challenged the appointment made of the 14 th

respondent. A merit list was notified in which Rakesh Kumar

Sah, the appellant in CWJC No. 7321 of 2015 obtained 85.93

marks; the highest among the four, with Bharat Chandra Prasad

securing 78.11 marks, Jeewan Lal Agrawal, the petitioner in

CWJC No. 9456 of 2015 securing 59.47 marks and the 14 th

respondent, Binod Kumar Gupta, 55.55 marks. The 14th

respondent, was at the bottom of the select list who was given

only '0' marks under the heading 'Capability to Provide

Infrastructure and Facilities', while Rakesh Kumar Shah

obtained 100 out of 100 marks. The capability of the 14 th Patna High Court L.P.A No.1481 of 2017 dt.24-08-2023

respondent to provide infrastructure and facilities was assessed

at 'nil' only since the proposed land was standing in the name of

State of Bihar, as reflected from Register-II as Gairmazarua

Bihar Sarkar, in revenue village Sakraili. Based on the selection

result at Annexure-5 dated 30.12.2012, the Corporation

requested for a 'No Objection Certificate' for establishment of

the retail outlet in the land offered by Rakesh Kumar Sah. The

Circle Officer by Annexure-6 dated 05.03.2013 replied that the

property offered by Rakesh Kumar Sah is situated at

Mahadeopur, while the land offered by Jiwan Lal Agrawal is

situated at mouza Sakraili. The District Magistrate, Katihar by

Annexure-6 dated 20.03.2013 granted N.O.C., as requested by

the Corporation, when a complaint was made by the 14th

respondent to the Senior Divisional Manager of the Corporation.

3. The complaint was of the 14th respondent with

respect to his capability to provide infrastructure and facilities

having been assessed as '0' while he secured very high marks in

all other heads. He also challenged the marks assigned to the

other applicants. The Corporation revisited the matter, carried

out site inspection and by Annexure-16 dated 17.06.2014

declared the 14th respondent to have secured the highest marks

at 89.61. Jiwan Lal Agrawal on revaluation obtained 87.32 Patna High Court L.P.A No.1481 of 2017 dt.24-08-2023

marks; above that obtained earlier, while Rakesh Kumar Sah

obtained only 84.53 marks; below that obtained earlier.

4. Rakesh Kumar Sah filed a writ petition

numbered as CWJC No. 21557 of 2014, wherein a direction

was given to afford a fresh hearing and consider the matter de

novo. The de novo consideration also favoured the 14th

respondent against which the two applicants had approached the

writ Court.

5. Before the writ Court, Rakesh Kumar Sah raised

two grounds, one that the land offered by the 14th respondent

belongs to the State and the successful applicant has no right

over it. The other contention, was regarding the location of the

land offered, which was stated to be in Sakraili village and not

in Mahadeopur; in which later place the Corporation had

intended to establish the retail outlet as evident from the

advertisement. Insofar as Jiwan Lal Agrawal is concerned, his

only grievance in the writ petition was with respect to the grant

of marks for 'fixed and movable assets'. He did not have any

contention regarding the revaluation in the other heads, since he

obviously received higher marks than the earlier selection.

6. The learned Single Judge found that neither of the

appellants raised any ground of malafides, in the revaluation Patna High Court L.P.A No.1481 of 2017 dt.24-08-2023

done or the appointment made. It was found that in judicial

review the petitioner cannot challenge the location at which the

retail outlet is to be established, especially since it lies within

the exclusive domain of the Principal, the Corporation. It was

also noticed that the Circle Officer by report dated 04.04.2014

as well as another communication of the Deputy Collector, Land

Reforms dated 18.03.2015 affirmed that Sakraili is part of

Mahadeopur, though they are situated in different revenue

mouza. There was no authenticated document regarding the

exact location and the village in which the lands were situated.

Finding the contours of judicial review to be limited, the learned

Single Judge relied upon the discretionary principle enshrined in

Article 226 and the need to ensure the larger public interest, thus

denying exercise of discretion under Article 226, even when the

litigant has a legal right. Decisions were quoted to emphasize

the limited scope for judicial review under Article 226,

especially in contractual matters. From a conspectus of the

various principles culled out from the decisions cited, from

which extracts were also made copiously, in the impugned

order, the challenge against the location and the award of marks

was found to be unsustainable.

7. Learned counsel for the appellants specifically Patna High Court L.P.A No.1481 of 2017 dt.24-08-2023

pointed out that there is no clarity insofar as the identification of

the location is concerned. The revenue authorities have blown

hot and cold insofar as the exact location is concerned. It is also

argued that the Corporation by the revaluation, interfered with a

proper exercise made at the earlier point. The learned Senior

Counsel appearing for the Corporation, however, asserted that

there is no confusion with respect to the location and the land

did not belong to the State of Bihar. The District Collector has

granted 'No Objection Certificate' for establishment of the

outlet, which would not have been done, if the land was a public

land. The learned counsel appearing for the 14 th respondent also

asserted his superior claim based on the revaluation carried out

by the corporation. The 14th respondent has now established the

retail outlet and is continuing thereat.

8. As has been noticed by the learned Single Judge,

there is no ground of malafides raised. In fact, the exercise

earlier conducted by the Corporation was objected to by one of

the applicants, which applicant had received '0' marks for the

capacity to provide infrastructure and facilities, only on the

ground that the land belonged to the State of Bihar. We see from

Annexure-25 produced in CWJC No. 7321 of 2015 that the

Deputy Collector, Land Reforms verified the land for the Patna High Court L.P.A No.1481 of 2017 dt.24-08-2023

establishment of Farmer Service Center in Pranpur Circle at

Post-Mahadeopur, District-Katihar as demanded by one Binod

Kumar Gupta, Son of Late Rameshwar Lal Gupta post office-

Mahadevpur, P.S.- Pranpur, District- Katihar. The description of

the concerned land in mouza Sakraili was extracted. It was

found that land was remaining in the name of Sunita Gupta,

wife of Binod Kumar, who has an intact possession and the

nature of the land is indicated as 'Raiyati'. It is also stated

therein that though the land is registered as gair majarua land of

Bihar Government in the Khatiyan (records of right) of the land

revisional survey, much before, it was settled in the name of

Kalu Dhobi who sold it to one Murari Lal Agrawal in the year

1960. In 1994, Murari Lal Agrawal sold 10 decimals of land to

Smt. Sunita Gupta and since then the settlement is in the name

of Smt. Sunita Gupta till 2014-2015, for which receipt has also

been issued in her name. It was also noticed that as on date,

there was a weigh bridge installed there. Insofar as the location

of the land, it is pointed out, though it comes under mauza

Sakraili, the land is situated in Mahadeopur village. The land

on both sides of the road leading to the scheduled land is called

Mahadeopur village by the local people.

9. We do not find any reason to interfere with the Patna High Court L.P.A No.1481 of 2017 dt.24-08-2023

judgment of the learned Single Judge, especially since the 'nil'

mark granted to the 14th respondent by the earlier evaluation

committee was by reason of the land being alleged to be

remaining in the name of the State of Bihar. It has been

established that the land belongs to the wife of the 14 th

respondent and in such circumstance, the revaluation done by

the committee cannot be faulted. The location of the land is also

said to be within Mahadeopur village, where the retail outlet

was to be installed, even as per the advertisement.

10. The appeals are devoid of merit and both stand

dismissed.

(K. Vinod Chandran, CJ)

( Partha Sarthy, J) Anushka/-

AFR/NAFR
CAV DATE
Uploading Date          30.08.2023
Transmission Date