Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sanjay Kumar vs Indian Oil Corporation Ltd And Another on 23 April, 2024
2024:PHHC:054842
202
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CWP-15106-2019
Date of Decision: 23.04.2024
SANJAY KUMAR ...Petitioner
Versus
INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD & ANR ...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL
Present:- Mr. Surinder Garg, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Ashish Kapoor, Advocate
for the respondents.
*****
JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J. (Oral)
1. The petitioner through instant petition under Articles 226/227
of Constitution of India is seeking setting aside of communication dated
04.05.2019(Annexure P-9) whereby his candidature for the allotment of RO
Dealership under OBC category has been rejected.
2. The petitioner pursuant to an advertisement applied for
allotment of RO Dealership, at Sector-89, Gurugram under OBC category.
He was selected in the draw of lots. For the purpose of evaluation of offered
land, Land Evaluation Committee of respondent visited the site on
15.04.2019. However, neither petitioner nor his representative was present at
the site. The members of the Committee on 15th and 17th April, 2019 called
him on his mobile phone and he confirmed that he is available on
18.04.2019 at 11:00 AM. However, he did not appear at the offered site on
authenticity of this order/judgment.
18.04.2019. The said Committee again rescheduled its visit. The petitioner
telephonically confirmed that he is available on 03.05.2019, thus, visit was
rescheduled for 03.05.2019. By e-mail dated 01.05.2019, the petitioner
informed the respondent that he is not available on the said date. The
respondent vide impugned communication has cancelled his candidature.
3. Mr. Surinder Garg, Advocate submits that petitioner was very
much interested for the allotment of RO Dealership. The respondent itself
cancelled the visit on 15.04.2019. With respect to visit dated 03.05.2019, he,
by email dated 01.05.2019 informed the respondents that he is not available
on the said date still respondent conducted verification and rejected his
candidature on the ground of non-availability.
4. Per contra, Mr. Ashish Kapoor, Advocate submits that members
of Committee visited the offered site on 15.04.2019. Neither petitioner nor
his representative was available, thus, a system generated e-mail was sent to
him whereby he was informed that visit has been cancelled and next date of
visit is 03.05.2019. In the meantime, the petitioner confirmed his availability
on 18.04.2019. The members of Committee visited the site on 18.04.2019,
however, neither petitioner nor his representative came forward. As agreed
by petitioner, the next visit was scheduled for 03.05.2019, however,
petitioner did not come forward on the said date rather he sent e-mail dated
01.05.2019 disclosing that he is away from the city, thus, he would not able
to be present. The petitioner was categorically informed that this is last
opportunity and he would not be granted further opportunity still he opted to
remain absent. Had he been interested, he would have deputed someone on
his behalf.
authenticity of this order/judgment.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
record with their able assistance.
6. From the perusal on record, it is evident that Land Evaluation
Committee fixed 15.04.2019 for its visit. Members visited the site, however,
petitioner was not available. He is trying to claim that visit was cancelled by
respondent. The petitioner is not claiming that he visited the site on
15.04.2019 whereas he is trying to take benefit of system generated e-mail
whereby respondent has informed him that visit has been cancelled and
rescheduled date is 03.05.2019. He has not placed on record any evidence
contrary to averment of the respondent that in the meantime visit was
rescheduled for 18.04.2019, but, petitioner did not come forward. He was
given another opportunity. The Committee rescheduled its visit for
03.05.2019. The petitioner vide email dated 01.05.2019 informed the
respondent that he would not be available at site on 03.05.2019. It is a case
of allotment of RO Dealership. The petitioner could appoint his
representative. The respondent gave reasonable opportunities to petitioner,
however, he intentionally or unintentionally avoided the visit of respondents.
The respondent has further allotted dealership on 23.03.2021 to another
candidate.
7. In the wake of above discussion and findings this Court finds
that the present petition deserves to be dismissed and accordingly dismissed.
(JAGMOHAN BANSAL)
23.04.2024 JUDGE
himanshu
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
authenticity of this order/judgment.
