RAMESH KUMAR Vs. GENERAL MANAGER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The short issue raised in the instant appeal filed under Clause X of the Letters Patent is "whether show cause notice was required to be issued to the appellants before recalling their selection, who were selected for HP Gas Distributorship at Chandigarh in open category"? The respondent Corporation passed a speaking order on 14.9.2009 (P-5), pointing out that interviews for HP Gas distributorship were conducted for location Chandigarh on 23/24.6.2008 and the result was declared on 24.6.2008. The appellants were positioned at first place in the merit panel. The respondent Corporation categorically held that the lease agreement in respect of the land for LPG Godown, dated 11.1.2008, as registered on 15.1.2008, was not acceptable because on verification of the record it was revealed that the land shown by the appellants for the purpose of LPG Godown, as mentioned in their application form, was already under acquisition process by the Finance Department of U.T. Chandigarh, vide notification dated 22.9.2006, issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 by the Chandigarh Administration. Therefore, 25 marks awarded in respect of the lease agreement were scored off. By virtue of the aforesaid fact, the name of the appellants was not to appear in the merit panel. Accordingly, the candidature of the appellants for the HP Gas Distributorship for the location Chandigarh was cancelled. The learned Single Judge repelled the argument that show cause notice was required to be issued. The view of the learned Single Judge is discernible from para 5 of the judgment, which reads thus:-

(2.) Mr. J.R. Mittal, learned Senior Advocate has argued that had there been an opportunity of hearing given to the appellants then they could have highlighted before the respondent Corporation that the godown site in Chandigarh is allotted on the request of the Corporation by the U.T. Administration who could further allot the same to their distributor (Annexure 'A'), It is claimed that the godown site which falls on the acquired land was to shift. Therefore, the failure to issue show cause notice consistent with the principles of natural justice, has cause prejudice to the rights of the appellants.

(3.) Mr. Atul Nehra and Ms. Jai Shree Thakur, learned Counsel for the respondent Corporation and the Chandigarh Administration have argued that the appellants did not have any right to the issuance of show cause notice because the lease deed, which was condition precedent as specified in the advertisement dated 1.12.2007, published in the English Daily 'The Tribune' (R-1/3), under Clause 11 for capacity to provide infrastructure, 35 marks have been allocated and on the basis of the lease deed the appellants were awarded 25 marks. However, on verification of facts concerning lease deed dated 15.1.2008 (P-1), the land was found to be under acquisition since 22.9.2006. Obviously, there cannot be any lease deed in respect of the aforesaid land and the appellants could not have been awarded any marks. The speaking order passed by the respondent Corporation exhaustively deal with the aforesaid facts.