THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B. VIJAYSEN REDDY
WRIT APPEAL No. 559 OF 2020
JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Hima Kohli)
1. The appellant is aggrieved by an order dated 11.11.2020 passed
by the learned Single Judge whereunder, I.A.No.2 of 2020 filed by her
in W.P.No.18859 of 2020 has been dismissed and the earlier interim
order passed on 21.10.2020 directing status quo in respect of
allotment of the subject Retail Outlet (RO) for a period of two weeks,
has been vacated.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant has drawn the attention of this
Court to the letter dated 06.08.2020 issued by the respondent No.2 to
the appellant with reference to her application for awarding the RO
dealership and calling upon her to furnish three documents on or
before 26.08.2020. The appellant was cautioned that in case she fails
to submit the three documents in question within the stipulated
timeline, her candidature would be liable to be rejected without any
further notice. Besides the above, the respondent No.2 has also
referred to the rectified documents submitted by the appellant in
respect of the subject land offered by her and stated as follows :-
"In case the rectified documents pertaining to the land offered are not submitted but other documents are submitted, your candidature may get considered for selection along with Group 3 applicants as per guidelines"
W.A.No.559 of 2020 Page 1 of 3
3. It is the stand of learned counsel for the appellant that the
appellant had submitted the rectified documents in respect of the land
in question to the respondent No.2 on the very next day
i.e., 07.08.2020 and the respondent No.2 had responded vide letter
dated 07.08.2020, confirming inter alia that the appellant had
submitted the required rectified documents and therefore, there was no
occasion for the respondents to have rejected the candidature of the
appellant on 03.09.2020 on the ground that they had not received the
documents regarding the land offered by her within the stipulated
timeline by referring to the date of the submission of the application.
Learned counsel argues that the respondents have themselves afforded
an opportunity to the appellant to submit the rectified documents
relating to the land and in those circumstances, the status quo order
operating in her favour ought to have been continued till the writ
petition is finally decided.
4. Mr. Mayur Reddy, learned counsel for the respondents/HPCL
disputes the aforesaid submission and seeks to rely on the Brochure
for Selection of Dealers for Regular and Rural Retail Outlets dated
24.11.2018, filed at page No.110. He refers to Clause 4 (v) which
deals with the eligibility criteria for individual applicants, to urge that
every applicant was required to ensure that as on the date of the
application, the offered land is of the required dimension and if it is
found at a later stage that the offered land does not meet the
requirement, then the candidature of the applicant can be rejected only
W.A.No.559 of 2020 Page 2 of 3 to be afforded an opportunity with the applicants falling under
Group 3.
5. We have specifically enquired from learned counsel for the
respondents to explain the background in which the letter dated
06.08.2020 was addressed to the appellant wherein, the respondent
No.2 has afforded an opportunity to the appellant to submit the
rectified documents pertaining to the land, only to be told that even if
the respondent No.2 has erred in giving such an option to the
appellant, the appellant's application cannot be considered contrary to
the terms and conditions of the Brochure.
6. We may note that the above aspect has yet to be finally
adjudicated upon by the learned Single Judge, as the writ petition is
still pending. In the above facts and circumstances, we are of the
opinion that the appellant has been able to make out a prima facie
case for continuation of the status quo order granted on 21.10.2020.
As a result, the said order is restored and the present appeal is
disposed of along with the pending applications, if any, with a request
to the learned Single Judge to make an endeavour to dispose of the
pending writ petition (W.P.No.18859 of 2020), preferably within a
period of two months.
______________________________ HIMA KOHLI, CJ
______________________________ B. VIJAYSEN REDDY, J 01.02.2021 JSU
W.A.No.559 of 2020 Page 3 of 3
