Parvat Prasad Garg vs State Of Rajasthan
2021 Latest Caselaw 11193 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16824/2019

Parvat Prasad Garg S/o Jogeshwar Garg, Aged About 30 Years, 3, Laxmi Nagar, Jalore, Rajasthan.

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Public Works Department, Secretariat, Jaipur.

2. The Deputy General Manager, Retail Sales, Indian Oil Corporation, Marketing Division Office, Jodhpur, Divisional Office, Sector-12, Chopasni Housing Board, Jodhpur - 342008.

3. The District Collector And Magistrate, Jalore, Collector Office, Jalore.

4. Vela Ram Parmar, Meghwalo Ka Vas, Keshwana, District Jalore, Rajasthan.

                                                                 ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)         :     Mr Ankur Mathur
For Respondent(s)         :     Mr Nishant Bora, Mr Govind Suthar
                                Mr Anil Bachhawat



             HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI

                                 Judgment

20/07/2021

This writ petition is filed by the petitioner challenging

the Letter of Intent dated 08.04.2019 (Annexure-4) issued in

favour of respondent No.4 by the respondent No.2.

It is also prayed that the respondent - Indian Oil

Corporation Ltd. (for short 'the Corporation' hereinafter) may be

directed to consider the application of the petitioner for allotment

of retail outlet. The petitioner has further prayed for some

ancillary reliefs.

Brief facts of the case are that the respondent -

Corporation issued an advertisement for allotment of retail outlet

(2 of 6) [CW-16824/2019]

dealership for selling petroleum products at various locations in

the State of Rajasthan. Out of the various locations, one of the

advertised locations is between KM. Stone 146 to KM. Stone 149-

Sayala to Bishangarh Road (hereinafter to be referred as 'the

location in question'). The petitioner and various other persons

including respondent No.4 had applied for the location in question,

however, the Corporation has considered the said applications on

their merits and issued a Letter of Intent in favour of the

respondent No.4 while placing him in Group-I category.

Being aggrieved with the action of the Corporation of

issuance of Letter of Intent in favour of respondent No.4, the

petitioner has filed this writ petition mainly on the ground that the

land offered by the respondent No.4 for establishing a retail outlet

at the location in question is not falling between KM. Stone 146 to

KM. Stone 149 on Sayala to Bishangarh Road but is falling

between KM. Stone 144 to 145 on Sayala to Bishangarh Road. In

support of his claim, the petitioner has placed on record a

communication issued by the office of the Tehsildar (Land

Revenue), Jalore dated 16.08.2019 (Annexure-5), wherein it is

mentioned that the land offered by the respondent No.4 for

establishment of retail outlet is falling in Khasra No.645, 649 and

650 of village Mandawla, which is situated between KM. Stone 144

and 145 of Sayala to Bishangarh Road. The petitioner has also

placed reliance on a communication issued by the Project Director,

PPP PWD PIU, Jalore dated 15.07.2019 (Annexure-6) stating that

plan and profile of State Highway-16 - Barmer - Sindhari -

Bishangarh, which includes Sayala to Bishangarh was reviewed on

18.06.2018.

(3 of 6) [CW-16824/2019]

On the strength of the above documents, the petitioner

is claiming that Corporation has erred in selecting the respondent

No.4 as dealer for establishment of retail outlet at the location in

question and also erred in issuing the Letter of Intent to him

though he had offered a land, which does not fall between KM

Stone-146 to KM Stone-149 on Sayala to Barmer Road but falls in

between KM Stone-144 to KM Stone-145 on the said road.

It is also contended on behalf of the petitioner that the

land offered by respondent No.4 for establishment of retail outlet

is also not meeting the minimum required distance from the

highway, however, the respondent No.4 in connivance with the

respondent - IOCL Authority manipulated by replacing the earlier

land with the other. It is further contended that the reason for

change of the land was because the earlier offered land was not

falling within the parameters prescribed.

Reply to the writ petition has been filed on behalf of the

Corporation as well as the respondent No.4. It is contended that

the location from KM Stone-146 to KM Stone-149 on Sayala to

Bishangarh Road was advertised by the Corporation on the basis

of actual condition at the road site and at the time of issuance of

advertisement. It is further contended that old KM Stones, which

were laid at the site were rearranged only on 08.02.2019. It is

submitted on behalf of the Corporation that change in the KM

Stones by PWD is the internal matter of it and the Corporation was

not having knowledge of review of plans and profile of State

Highway-16 - Barmer-Sindhari-Bishangarh, which includes Sayala

to Bishangarh at the time of issuance of advertisement. It is

further submitted that though the PWD might have reviewed the

plans and profiles of the above referred road on 18.06.2018 but in

(4 of 6) [CW-16824/2019]

fact the KM Stones were rearranged on the said road on

08.02.2019 only.

It is further submitted that so far as allegation of the

petitioner of acceptance of another land, which was earlier offered

by the respondent No.4 is concerned, the same is also not tenable

as earlier also the respondent No.4 had offered land of Khasra

No.649 for the purpose of establishing the retail outlet, however,

in the lease deed the boundaries of the land offered has wrongly

been mentioned and, therefore, a rectified lease deed was

executed mentioning the correct boundaries of the land offered

and the said process cannot be said to be changed in the land

offered by the respondent No.4.

It is further submitted that the land offered by the

respondent No.4 was very much falling under the advertised

stretch at the time of selection of respondent No.4, however, the

KM Stones were rearranged later on but the land offered by

respondents No.4 remains at the same place. Hence, there is no

discrepancy in the action of the respondent - Corporation.

Learned counsels for the parties have advanced their

arguments in terms of the averments made in the writ petition as

well as in reply to the writ petition.

The advertisement (Annexure-1) issued by the

Corporation for allotment of dealers of retail outlet on 14.12.2018

includes the location in question and the last date for submission

of the application form was 12.01.2019. The respondent No.4

submitted his application pursuant to the advertisement within

prescribed time and the respondent - Corporation selected the

respondent No.4 on 14.01.2019. From the material available on

record, it can be gathered that though the PWD has reviewed the

(5 of 6) [CW-16824/2019]

plans and profile of State Highway-No.16 - Barmer-Sindhari-

Bishangarh, which includes Sayala to Bishangarh Road from

Chainage 116+000 to 148+090 on 18.06.2018 but in fact the

actual rearrangements of the KM Stones were laid down on

08.02.2019 and the same is evident from the letter issued by the

Project Director, PPP PWD PIU Jalore dated 19.08.2019 to the

respondent-Corporation, which is placed on record as Annexure-

R2/5 along with reply of respondent No.2.

It appears that confusion regarding the land offered by

the respondent No.4 for the purpose of establishment of retail

outlet occurred on account of rearrangement of the KM Stones by

PWD on 08.02.2019 pursuant to the review of plan and profile

dated 18.06.2018.

There is no reason to disbelieve the contention of the

respondent - Corporation that it had issued the advertisement in

relation to location in question on the basis of actual condition at

the road site and was not aware of the review of plans and profile

carried out by the PWD on 18.06.2018 for Sayala to Bishangarh

Road, which was practically carried out on 08.02.2019 i.e. after

the issuance of the advertisement and selection of respondent

No.4.

As per the respondent No.4, he has offered the part of

land of Khasra No.649 for the purpose of establishment of retail

outlet and the same is also evident from the letter dated

08.04.2019 (Annexure-4) issued by the Corporation to the

respondent No.4. A copy of the lease deed said to have been

executed by one Tulsa Ram in favour of respondent No.4 was

submitted along with application form by respondent No.4 in

which it is mentioned that a part of land of Khasra No.649 has

(6 of 6) [CW-16824/2019]

been leased out to him by Tulsa Ram. A rectified lease deed is

placed on record by the counsel for the respondent No.4, wherein

recital regarding rectification of boundaries of plot of Khasra

No.649, which is leased out to respondent No.4, has been

mentioned.

In such circumstances, it is clear that respondent No.4

has offered the part of land of Khasra No.649 for the purpose of

establishment of retail outlet and the same has not been changed.

Only the description regarding the boundaries of the plot has been

rectified by way of rectification lease deed.

In such circumstances, I do not find any illegality in the

action of the respondent - Corporation of issuing of Letter of

Intent in favour of respondent No.4. Hence, there is no force in

this writ petition and the same is hereby dismissed.

Stay petition also stands dismissed.

Application Inward No. 02/21 stands disposed of.

(VIJAY BISHNOI),J

79-masif/-PS

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)