Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Smt. Babita vs Union Of India And Ors on 24 May, 2023

Bench: Nupur Bhati

[2023/RJJD/015898]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR

(1) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13072/2012
Smt. Anju Bishnoi, W/o Shri Gangavishan, R/o Dayasagar
(Khara), Tehsil Phalodi, District Jodhpur (Raj.)
----Petitioner

Versus

Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., through its Divisional Retail Sales
Manager, Jodhpur Divisional Office, Sector-12, Choupasni
Housing Board, Jodhpur.
----Respondent

Connected with

(2) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10685/2012

Smt. Babita W/o Shri Shobharaj, aged 26 years, R/o Adarsh
Nagar Phalodi, District Jodhpur.
----Petitioner

Versus

1. The Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of
Petroleum and Natural Gas, New Delhi.
2. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., through Chief Operation
Manager (Managing Director), Ashok Chowk, New
Radhaswami Satsang Bhawan, Adarsh Nagar, Jaipur
Rajasthan.
3. The Chief Manager, Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. (Marketing
Division), World Trade Center, Babar Road, New Delhi.
4. The General Manager, Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. Rajasthan
State Office, Indian Oil Bhawan, Ashok Chowk, near
Radhaswami Satsang Bhawan, Adarsh Nagar, Jaipur
Rajasthan
5. The Senior Divisional Manager (Retail), Indian Oil
Corporation Ltd. Sector-12, Choupasni Housing Board,
Jodhpur.
6. Smt. Anju Bishnoi, W/o Shri Gangavishan, R/o Dayasagar
(Khara), Tehsil Phalodi, District Jodhpur.
----Respondent

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Pravin Vyas
Mr. Harshvardhan Singh Rathore
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rajesh Joshi, Sr. Advocate,
assisted by Mr. D.L.R. Vyas

(Downloaded on 25/05/2023 at 09:12:02 PM)
[2023/RJJD/015898] (2 of 13) [CW-13072/2012 & CW-10685/2012]

Mr. Sandeep Shah, Sr. Advocate-cum-
AAG, assisted by Ms. Akshiti Singhvi

HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE NUPUR BHATI

JUDGMENT

Reserved on:-          18/05/2023
Pronounced on:- 24/05/2023

1. Since both these writ petitions have been filed in respect of

advertisement dated 20.09.2011 regarding allotment of dealership

of retail outlet, and for the same outlet, therefore, the writ

petitions are decided by a common order.

2. For the purpose of deciding the controversy, I deem it

appropriate to first decide the controversy involved in S.B. Civil

Writ Petition No.10685/2012.

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.10685/2012

1. The instant writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner

under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with the following

prayers:-

"I. by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the order dated 28.11.2012 (Anenxure-6) may kindly be declared illegal and be quashed and set aside, consequently the respondent be directed to issue Letter Of Intent in favour of the petitioner.

II. Any other appropriate order or direction, which this Hon'ble Court considers just and proper in the facts and circumstances of this case, may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner.

III. Costs of the writ petition may kindly be awarded to the petitioner."

2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent issued an

advertisement dated 20.09.2011, inviting applications for

[2023/RJJD/015898] (3 of 13) [CW-13072/2012 & CW-10685/2012]

appointment of dealers of retail-outlets at various points, which

was published in a tabular form of eleven columns on 21.09.2011

in 'Rajasthan Patrika' with various qualifications for eligibility of a

person to apply for allotment of dealership of retail outlets and the

controversy is involved with columns Nos.7A and 7B.

3. The Column 7A of the advertisement indicates that an

applicant should have available with him approximate capital

(excluding the cost of land) for development of necessary

infrastructure on the compound of retail outlet whereas, column

7B prescribes the approximate liquid capital available with an

applicant for the purpose of operating the retail outlet.

4. The retail outlet which was applied for by the petitioner was

at Sr.No.151 in the said advertisement pertaining to NH-15

(Phalodi-Ramdeora Road) between km stone 187 to 191. The

relevant column i.e. column No.7A mentioned that no such capital

for development of infrastructure is required, however, as per

column No.7B, the liquid capital approximately required for being

eligible was Rs.21 lacs.

5. The Condition No.13 in the advertisement provided that

where income/assets of the applicant is not in the sole ownership

of the applicant and falls within the joint account or assets of the

family, then the same shall be considered for evaluation only when

a notarized affidavit denoting consent of such family members is

filed along with the application and the application was considered

for evaluation. The petitioner who was eligible for applying for

allotment of dealership in terms of advertisement (Anenxure-1)

applied for the same.

[2023/RJJD/015898] (4 of 13) [CW-13072/2012 & CW-10685/2012]

6. In column 2A of the liquid capital document (Annexure-3)

and as per the details of the petitioner's bank account, an amount

of Rs.4,73,000/- was shown in the State Bank of Bikaner and

Jaipur, Branch Phalodi. Total liquid capital available in the case of

petitioner was Rs.21,51,120/- which included the assets of the

petitioner's husband. In column 2A of Annexure-3, the petitioner

has shown an amount of Rs.4,73,000/- as standing in her account

and the said fact was verified by the copy of pass-book detailing

the relevant entries which were showing entries till 17.10.2011.

7. On 20.10.2011, an amount of Rs.3,000/- was withdrawn

from the said account by ATM transaction and after processing the

application of the petitioner, she was invited for interview on

04.05.2012 and as a result whereof, she was declared 'first' in

merit panel prepared for allotment of dealership.

8. The petitioner received a letter dated 28.11.2021 by post on

01.12.2012, intimating her that she has not been found eligible

for issuance of Letter Of Intent, which further revealed that after

the petitioner was declared 'first' in merit, and after an interview,

a complaint was received by the respondent-Corporation on

28.05.2012 in which it was alleged that when the petitioner filed

an application for allotment of dealership on 21.10.2011, she

mentioned an amount of Rs.4,73,513.21 in her account, whereas

upon verification, it was revealed that on 21.10.2011 an amount

of Rs.4,70,513.21 was found present in her account. Hence, this

petition.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioner made following

submissions:-

[2023/RJJD/015898] (5 of 13) [CW-13072/2012 & CW-10685/2012]

(a) As per the eligibility criteria laid down in the advertisement,

the petitioner was required to satisfy the condition of being in

possession of liquid capital to the tune of Rs.21 lakhs. The amount

available with the petitioner was to the tune of Rs.21,51,150/-,

therefore, even if a difference of Rs.3,000- was present in the

amount as contended by the respondents, then also it did not

affect the eligibility of the petitioner as even if the said amount is

deducted from the amount of RS.21,51,150/-, the petitioner will

fulfill the eligibility criteria of Rs.21 lakhs. Therefore, the order

impugned deserves to be quashed and set aside.

(b) The petitioner, along with her application form, submitted the

details of her bank account on 20.10.2011, showing the details of

transaction uptill 17.10.2011. An amount of Rs.3000/- was

withdrawn from the said account through an ATM transaction on

20.10.2011. The disclosure of the information made vide Annex.4

cannot be said to be incorrect as it showed the details up to

20.10.2011 and on 20.10.2011, the balance was

Rs.4,73,513.21/-. The petitioner was required to satisfy the

availability of requisite amount on the date of the application and

the petitioner was having the requisite fund available with her on

the date of filing of the application i.e. 20.10.2011 and no false

information in regard to the same was furnished.

without affording the petitioner an opportunity of hearing based

on one complaint. If a complaint was filed pointing out that the

petitioner had a sum of Rs.4,70,513.21/- in her bank account

instead of Rs.4,73,513.21/-, then, respondent-Corporation was

required to afford the petitioner an opportunity of hearing to

[2023/RJJD/015898] (6 of 13) [CW-13072/2012 & CW-10685/2012]

fortify the same. The respondent-Corporation had issued a

brochure for selection of petrol/diesel retail outlet dated

02.09.2011, whereby certain guidelines had been laid down and

under the Clause 18, the provision for grievance/complaint

redressal system had been laid down, which specifically said that

the complainant, etc., are required to be given due opportunity

before passing a speaking order. The relevant provision is

reproduced hereunder:-

"18. Grievance/Complaint redressal system: (A) An aggrieved person may send his/her complaint to IOC at the address of the customer service cell displayed at the nearest retail outlet of IOC. Complaints can also be lodged on the website of IOC. Complaints against dealer selection received after 30 days from the date of declaration of the result of the interview will not be entertained under any circumstances.

(i) Anonymous/pseudonymous complaints will not be investigated and will be filed without taking any action on the same.

(ii) On receipt of a complaint a letter will be sent by IOC to the complainant through Registered Post, asking him to submit details of allegation with a view to prima facie substantiate the allegations along with supporting documents, if any, within 30 days. Response of the complainant will be examined by IOC and if it is found that the complaint does not have specific and verifiable allegations, the same will be filed. The complainant will be clearly advised that the complaint will be examined by IOC and if it is established that the complaint does not have any substance, the same will be liable for legal action.

(B) When a decision is taken to investigate the complaint, the investigation will be done by a Senior Official of Oil

[2023/RJJD/015898] (7 of 13) [CW-13072/2012 & CW-10685/2012]

Company and will pass speaking order after giving due opportunity to all concerned. Thereafter, decision on the complaint will be taken as under:-

xxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxx

10. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance upon the

judgment of Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Indian Oil

Corporation Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Kalu Ram & Ors. [2011 SCC Online

P&H 7516].

11. Learned counsel for the respondent made following

submissions:-

(a) The petitioner had submitted the application form on

21.10.2011 and not on 20.10.2011 as contended by petitioner as

the same was received by the respondent's office vide receipt

No.129 dated 21.10.2011 and the same is placed on record as

Annex.R/3. The petitioner, through her bank statement, claimed

Rs.4,73,513.21/- to be in her bank account bearing

No.51040998012 on 20.10.2011 of SBBJ, Phalodi, Jodhpur. After

due verification of the documents submitted by the petitioner, a

field investigation report was submitted, which showed that the

petitioner had an amount of Rs.4,70,513.21/- on the date of

submission of application form, i.e. 21.10.2011. The information

regarding the financial status, as given by the petitioner along

with her application form, was found to be incorrect as the actual

balance on the date of application submitted by the petitioner, was

less than the amount claimed by the petitioner. The Brochure

(Annex.R/1) issued by the respondent-Corporation for selection of

petrol/diesel retail outlet clearly specified under Clause 13 that

"amount given in FDS, Bank accounts and other financial

[2023/RJJD/015898] (8 of 13) [CW-13072/2012 & CW-10685/2012]

documents as proof for financial capacity should be valid as on the

date of application', whereas petitioner has not given the correct

financial documents as proof along with the application form.

(b) Under the clause 19.2 of the Brochure (Annex.R/1),

pertaining to furnishing of false information, it has been

specifically said that "if any information furnished by the applicant

is found to be false at any point of time before or after

appointment as a dealer, the allotment will be cancelled forthwith

and dealership terminated in case commissioned". Thus, upon the

fact that petitioner has furnished false/incorrect information of

having a balance of Rs.4,73,513.21/-, the impugned order has

rightly been passed against the petitioner.

laid down, sub-clause (h) pertains to the cancellation of the

candidature at any stage if found to be incorrect or false without

issuing any reason and the same is reproduced hereunder:-

"If any statement made in the application or in the document

enclosed therewith or subsequently submitted in pursuance of the

application by the candidate at any stage is found to be incorrect

or false, the application is liable to be rejected without assigning

any reason and in case the applicant has been appointed as a

dealer, the dealership is liable to be terminated. In such case the

candidate/dealer shall have no claim whatsoever against IOC."

12. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

material available on record.

13. This is an admitted position that the petitioner submitted the

application form on 21.10.2011 and not on 20.10.2011. The bank

statement, as submitted by the petitioner showed

[2023/RJJD/015898] (9 of 13) [CW-13072/2012 & CW-10685/2012]

Rs.4,73,513.21/- to be in her bank account as on 20.10.211,

whereas on 20.10.2011 itself, an amount of Rs.3,000/- was

withdrawn from the bank account of the petitioner. Thus, the total

amount that remained in the account of the petitioner was

Rs.4,70,513.21/-. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner fulfilled

the eligibility criteria as laid down in the advertisement being in

possession of liquid capital to the tune of Rs.21 lakhs on the date

of submission of the application form. The amount available with

the petitioner was to the tune of Rs.21,51,150/- and a difference

of Rs.3,000/- if deducted from the said amount, would not have

made difference because the benchmark laid down in the eligibility

criteria was of Rs.21 lakhs. This fact cannot be denied that there

was a false information given on the part of the petitioner that an

amount of Rs.4,73,513.21/-. was present in her bank account as

on 21.10.2011 as the application was submitted on 21.10.2011.

The bank statement submitted by the petitioner reflected the

balance to the tune of Rs.4,73,513.21/- as on 20.10.2011, but the

same was false and incorrect as the petitioner withdrew an

amount of Rs.3,000/-, but the petitioner was required to give valid

information which had to be true and correct on the date of

submission of the application form and the petitioner failed to do

so. However, upon receiving the field investigation report by the

respondent-Corporation, it came to their knowledge that the

amount claimed by the petitioner in her bank account as on

20.10.2011 was not Rs.4,73,513.21/- but was Rs.4,70,513.21/-.

14. The clause 19.2 of the brochure pertains to furnishing of

false information and empowers the Corporation to cancel the

candidature at any point of time if any information is found to be

[2023/RJJD/015898] (10 of 13) [CW-13072/2012 & CW-10685/2012]

false by the applicant. Here, it is important to note that the

application could be rejected by the respondent-Corporation if any

information was found to be false and incorrect and such rejection

does not restrict to information pertaining to only eligibility,

therefore, the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that

the petitioner fulfilled all other eligibility criteria and no

information pertaining to eligibility was falsely furnished and

therefore, her candidature has wrongly been rejected. Further, the

clause 21.0, where the general terms and conditions are laid

down, the clause (h) empowers the Corporation to reject the

application without assigning any reason if any statement made in

the application or in the documents enclosed therewith or

subsequently in pursuance of the application at any stage is found

to be incorrect or false. The aforementioned clause (h) of Clause

21.0 bestows wide power to the respondent-Corporation to reject

the application at any stage, that too, without assigning any

reason.

15. Admittedly, the petitioner gave a false/incorrect information

in the document enclosed with the application form that she had a

balance of Rs.4,73,513.21/- in her bank account on 20.10.2011,

whereas the same was found to be RS.4,70,513.21/- on the date

of application form i.e. 21.10.2011.

16. It is further important to note that the sub-clause (h) of

Clause 21.0 also categorically mentions that if any information is

found to be incorrect or false, then the respondent-Corporation

can reject the application of the applicant without assigning any

reason. Thus, in such case, the applicant is not even required to

be afforded an opportunity of hearing and the respondent-

[2023/RJJD/015898] (11 of 13) [CW-13072/2012 & CW-10685/2012]

Corporation is not under obligation to assign any reason However,

in the instant case, the respondent-Corporation has assigned a

categorical reason for rejecting the application of the petitioner.

17. As far as the issue of opportunity of hearing not being

afforded to the petitioner before passing impugned order is

concerned, is of no consequence because even if the petitioner

would have been afforded an opportunity of hearing, the fact that

an incorrect information in respect of balance in her account was

submitted by the petitioner along with the application form cannot

be denied. Had there been even a remote possibility of change in

the decision of the respondent, if there was any ambiguity in

respect of balance in her account on 21.10.2011, then certainly an

opportunity of hearing would have been of paramount importance

for the petitioner. The petitioner had not refuted this fact that on

21.10.2011, the balance in the petitioner's account was

Rs.4,70,513.21/- and not Rs.4,73,513.21/-. Thus, even if the

petitioner had been afforded an opportunity of hearing, the fact of

discrepancy in the account of the petitioner could not be denied.

18. In view of the above, I do not find any reason to interfere

with the impugned order. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed.

19. The stay application and all other applications, if any, stand

disposed of accordingly.

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.10685/2012

1. This writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner under

Article 226 of the Constitution of India with the following prayers:-

"(i) by an appropriate writ, order or direction the result dated 04.05.2012 (Annex.5) for selection of the

[2023/RJJD/015898] (12 of 13) [CW-13072/2012 & CW-10685/2012]

dealership of retail outlet, in pursuance of the advertisement dated 20.09.2011. qua respondent no.6 may kindly be quashed and set aside;

(ii) by appropriate writ, order or direction, any consequential allotment of the distributorship to the private respondent for petrol pump for the location Kmstone 187 & 191 at NH-15 situated between Phalodi & Ramdeora road in pursuance of the advertisement dated 20.09.2011 may be quashed and set aside;

(iii) by appropriate writ, order or direction, if the private respondent's no.6 position is quashed, then the respondents may kindly be directed to operate the result-sheet by giving the Letter of Intent and consequential allotment in favour of the petitioner, who shall be the highest in the merit; will do justice in the case of the petitioner.

(iv) by appropriate writ, order or direction, any order passed by the respondents in pursuance of the objections raised by the petitioner may be kindly treated as a part and parcel of the writ petition and the same may be quashed and set aside;"

2. From a bare perusal of the reliefs prayed for by the petitioner

in this writ petition, it is clear that the main challenge is against

the respondent No.6, who is petitioner in connected writ petition

No.13072/2012, which stood dismissed by the aforesaid order.

3. In view of the aforesaid decision passed in SB Civil Writ

Petition No.13072/2012, the present writ petition is disposed of

while directing the respondent-Corporation to consider the

candidature of the petitioner for allotment of the dealership of

retail outlet at NH No.15, between KM Stone 187 to 191 (Phalodi-

Ramdeora Road) in pursuance of the advertisement dated

[2023/RJJD/015898] (13 of 13) [CW-13072/2012 & CW-10685/2012]

20.09.2011, published on 21.09.2011, strictly in accordance with