Kamla Devi vs Bharat Petroleum Corporation ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 6317 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1358/2020

Kamla Devi D/o Shri Snwat Ram W/o Shri Suresh Kumar, Aged About 41 Years, Resident Of Kalera Bas, Ward No. 36, Churu.

----Petitioner Versus

1. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited, 12/e And F, Maker Towers, Cuffe Parade, Post Box No. 19949 Mumbai- 400005 Through Its General Manager.

2. Territory Manager (Retail), Bharat Petroleum Limited Salawas Installation, Near Salawas Railway Station Viii- Salawas, Jodhpur.

3. Rajkumar S/o Shri Gallu Ram Meghwal, Resident Of Village Ramsara Tehsil And District Churu.

                                                                ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)         :    Mr. Om Rajpurohit
For Respondent(s)         :    Mr. Vinay Kothari
                               Mr. Rahul Sharma



             HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE NUPUR BHATI

                                    Order

24/08/2023

(1) The present writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of

the Constitution of India with the following prayers:-

"(i) the impugned order dated 01.01.2020 (Ann.15) passed by the respondent No.2 may kindly be declared highly illegal, arbitrary, unjust and same may kindly be quashed and set aside.

(ii) the respondents may kindly be directed to consider the candidate of the petitioner for award of Retail Outlet Dealership at on either side of NH 52 (Rajgarh-Fatehpur Road) fro, either side of NH 52 (Rajgarh-Fatehpur Road) from Km stone 55 to 65 District Churu.

(iii) The respondent may kindly be directed to issue the Letter of Intent to the petitioner for award of

(2 of 6) [CW-1358/2020]

Retail Outlet Dealership at on either side of NH 52 (Rajgarh-Fatehpur Road) from either side of NH 52 (Rajgarh-Fatehpur Road) from Km stone 55 to 65."

(2) The brief facts of the case are that the respondent -

Corporation Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. and Hindustan

Petroleum issued guidelines for selection of General and Rural

Retail Outlet Dealers on 28.11.2018. The petitioner having all

required qualification for filing application, submitted the same for

appointment of Regular Retail Outlet Dealership at location on

either side of NH 52 (Rajgarh-Fatehpur Road) from Km Stone 55

to 65, Churu on 12.01.2019. The respondent - Corporation

published the list of candidates, who had applied for the location

in question and the name of the petitioner appeared at S.No.2.

The respondent - Corporation, vide communication dated

14.06.2019, informed the petitioner that she has qualified for

draw of lots for selection of retail outlet dealership and directed

her to remain present personally on 25.06.2019. The respondent

- Corporation organized draw of lots on 25.06.2019 and vide

communication dated 26.06.2019 informed the petitioner that she

has declared as selected and directed to submit the requisite

documents for conduction land evaluation and field verification of

credentials and also directed to remit the initial security deposit.

The respondent No.2, vide communication dated 26.06.2019, also

directed the petitioner to remit online Rs.30,000/- towards initial

security deposit and submit the set of the documents as specified

within 10 days for processing her application. The petitioner duly

deposited the initial security amount of Rs.30,000/- online and

forwarded the receipt to the respondent No.2 through e-mail on

05.07.2019.

(3 of 6) [CW-1358/2020]

(3) The petitioner thereafter submitted an application before the

respondent No.2 seeking extension of time in order submit

undertaking/declaration of the co-tenant of the proposed land at

NH 52. The respondent No.2, vide communication dated

08.07.2019, granted 10 days' time to the petitioner for submitting

the requisite documents. Thereafter, the respondent No.2, vide

communication dated 23.11.2019, directed the petitioner to

submit the requisite documents at his office by 12.12.2019 upon

the condition that otherwise the petitioner's candidature would be

rejected.

(4) The petitioner submitted that the petitioner has deposited

the requisite documents in the office of the respondent No2. On

17.07.2019 for which the petitioner has also been issued. The

petitioner again submitted the requisite documents before the

respondent No.2 on 10.12.2019. The respondent No.2, vide order

dated 01.01.2020 (Annex.15), cancelled the candidature of the

petitioner on the ground that the petitioner did not submit the

affidavit X-A and Advocate Report as per appendix III-B is of later

date than the date of the application submitted by the petitioner.

The respondent thereafter selected the private respondent for

award of the retail outlet dealership in question. The petitioner,

being aggrieved of the same, prefers the present writ petition.

(5) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that vide

communication dated 23.11.2019, the respondent Corporation

had granted time to the petitioner to submit the requisite

documents by 12.12.2019 and the petitioner had duly submitted

the documents. Thus, the petitioner's candidature could not have

(4 of 6) [CW-1358/2020]

been rejected stating that the petitioner had deposited the

document later to the date of filing of the application.

(6) Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that in

pursuant of the communication dated 23.11.2019, the petitioner

deposited all the requisite documents before the respondent along

with application on 10.12.2019 and thus, once the respondents

themselves granted the petitioner an opportunity for submitting

the documents, then her candidature has been wrongly rejected.

(7) Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that in the

Guidelines for Award of General and Rural Retail Outlet

Dealership, it has been specifically stated that if there is any

deficiency, which could be cured, then the candidate can be given

21 days' time period to rectify the same. The relevant part is

reproduced hereunder:-

"p;fur mEehnokj dks lq/kkj ds rgr lq/kkfjr@lgh nLrkost iznku djus ds fy, 21 fnu dk le; fn;k tk;sxkA ;fn p;fur mEehnokj 21 fnu ds vanj lq/kkfjr@lgh izek.ki=@nLrkost iznku djus esa foQy jgrk gS rks ,l,e,l@bZesy ds ek/;e ls lqpfr djrs gq, mldh mEEhnokjh fujLr dj nh tk,xhA"

He further submits that thus the respondent - Corporation

was under an obligation to extend the petitioner the time period of

21 days and as the petitioner had submitted the letter dated

12.01.2019 well in time, the same ought to have been considered

(8) Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that

the application was filed by the petitioner on 12.01.2019 and ther

is a specific note in the application itself that the confirmatory

letter (Appendix IIIB) giving the details of the current ownership,

documents relied upon and the category under which the land falls

(5 of 6) [CW-1358/2020]

has to be submitted before the application and the same is

reproduced hereunder:-

"In case land belongs to member of Family/Others, notarized affidavit as per Appendix III A should be available which is to be submitted when asked by Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. Each applicant should have a confirmatory letter from an advocate (Appendix IIIB) giving details of the current ownership, documents relied upon and the category under which the land falls (Group 1 or Group 2) before submitting the application."

(9) Learned counsel for the respondents draws attention of this

Court towards the affidavit submitted by the petitioner dated

12.07.2019 (Annex.14) and submits that there is no iota of doubt

that the affidavit was submitted later to the application filed by

the petitioner dated 12.01.2019 and the same is contrary to the

guidelines as well as the note in the application.

(10) Learned counsel for the respondents have placed reliance

upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in the

case of Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. & Ors. Vs.

Swapnil Singh [Civil Appeal Nos.6928-6929/2015, decided

on 08.09.2015] and the judgment of this Court in the case of

Salim Ali Vs. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. & Anr. [S.B.

Civil Writ Petition No.1463/2020, decided on 16.05.2023].

(10) Heard learned counsel for the parties.

(11) Admittedly, the application submitted by the petitioner is

dated 12.01.2019 and the confirmatory letter submitted by the

petitioner is dated 12.07.2019. The clause as mentioned in the

guidelines is unambiguous and specifically states that the

confirmatory letter has to be submitted before the application is

filed before the Corporation. Also, in the application submitted by

(6 of 6) [CW-1358/2020]

the petitioner on 12.01.2019, the note specifically states that such

confirmatory letter has to be filed prior to filing of the application.

(12) Even though the respondents have granted time to the

petitioner for curing the deficiency or for submitting the requisite

documents before the Corporation, it cannot be presumed that the

confirmatory letter dated 12.07.2019, submitted by the petitioner

can relate back to the date when the petitioner had submitted his

application, i.e. 12.01.2019.

(13) In light of the fact that the petitioner was not having the

requisite eligibility on the date of filing of the application as he

was not having in possession the confirmatory letter on the date

of submitting the application, the writ petition is dismissed.

(14) The stay application and all other pending applications, if

any, also stand disposed of.

(DR. NUPUR BHATI),J 164-skm/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)