MITHLESH BAIS Vs. INDIAN OIL CORPORATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has sought relief to the effect that by issuance of a writ of certiorari, the impugned final mark sheet/tabulation sheet (Annx.P/7) be quashed and a writ of mandamus be issued to the respondents to grant the marks to the petitioner in the category of capacity to provide land and infrastructure facilities and to select the petitioner for retail outlet dealership at Navgarh. A writ of prohibition is also claimed restraining the respondents not to grant the retail outlet dealership as per location 184, Navgarh, Waidhan Road in open category to any other person. It is contended by the petitioner that by publication of the advertisement in the newspaper, applications were invited from the eligible candidates for grant of such retail outlet dealership. Various requirements were shown in the advertisement and it was said that the marks will be assigned to all candidates according to the marks indicated in each category for each item, in the advertisement. It is the contention of the petitioner that as per the guidelines, the petitioner filled in the form, submitted it before the respondents, but despite production of the documents that the petitioner has the land to provide for the purposes of establishment of retail outlet at the location for which the application was submitted and according to the criteria of the respondents themselves, for the said purposes 35 marks were required to be assigned, yet while issuing the detailed information contained in Annx.P/7, zero mark was given to the petitioner in this particular category of providing land infrastructure and facilities. According to the petitioner, a representation was made, but since nothing was done, he was required to approach this Court. Initially in the writ petition, the respondent No. 4 was made a party and it was said that since she has been assigned the marks, there was every likelihood that retail outlet dealership would be granted to her.

(2.) On issuance of notice of this writ petition, the respondents have filed their return. The respondents have categorically pointed out that there was specific condition stipulated in the advertisement as also the guidelines placed for the purposes of selection of petrol/diesel retail outlet dealership that assessment will be done with respect to the each and every category separately and after verifying the documents submitted and evaluation of committee obtained, marks will be given for each and every item. It is contended by the respondents that though the petitioner in his application (Annx.P/3), Column No. 12, has mentioned 4 Khasra numbers of the land which was offered to be used for the purposes of establishing the retail outlet dealership, yet there was no affidavit to this effect submitted by the petitioner by the owners of the land that said land would be provided to the petitioner for establishing the retail outlet. It is contended that the petitioner has submitted the affidavit of his father, but the affidavit with respect to all Khasra numbers was not filed. The sale deed of the land so purchased was submitted by the petitioner, but again, it was found that concerning document of authorisation of use of land by the petitioner for the purposes of establishing the retail outlet was not submitted. The Committee thereafter measured the land which was owned by the petitioner and it was found that the same was not sufficient within the norms prescribed for establishing the retail outlet and, therefore, holding that the land is not sufficient for establishing the retail outlet, no marks were given to the petitioner. However, it is further contended by the respondents in their return that the entire selection process was cancelled as none of the applicants pursuance to the advertisement referred to above was found eligible to be selected. This being so, the process was abandoned and now the fresh process would be done.

(3.) In the aforesaid circumstances, this petition was finally heard. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for for respondents, this Court is of the opinion that the assessment of the petitioner with respect to his suitability for grant of retail outlet dealership was not properly done. True it is that in the application the petitioner has mentioned four Khasras of the land which he offered for the purposes of establishing the retail outlet. However, he has filed a document along with the writ petition indicating that out of land of these Khasra numbers one was owned by him i.e. Khasra No. 3067. The other Khasra number mentioned is 3066, which is owned by his younger brother. The fact that an affidavit of his younger brother was produced by the petitioner as categorically been mentioned in the rejoinder and this fact is not controverted by the respondents. If the younger brother of the petitioner was ready to put all his movable and immovable properties at the disposal of the petitioner, in case the retail outlet dealership is granted to him, it could not have been said that such a document was not to be taken into account. IN case any other supporting document was required, the respondents could have asked for production of such a document, but the measurement of this land was not done only because the respondents say that such a declaratory document was not available. Such a stand of the respondents is not acceptable. Out of the offered land, Khasra No. 3068 belongs to the father of the petitioner and he too has submitted an affidavit to the effect that he will provide such land to the petitioner in case the retail outlet dealership is granted to the petitioner for the purposes of establishing the said retail outlet. Production of this affidavit is also not disputed by the respondents. Lastly, the land of Khasra No. 3069 is also owned by the father of the petitioner. Thus, sufficient land was available with the petitioner for the purposes of establishing the retail outlet. Why such land was not taken into consideration, has not been effectively answered by the respondents. Merely, this much has been said that there were certain lacunas found as have been mentioned in paragraph 9 of the return of the respondents.