NARAYAN SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present Appeal arises from order dated 19.2.2013 dismissing CWJC no. 16270 of 2010. The Learned Single Judge held that if on account of subsequent developments, the earlier land site offered by respondent no. 8 for construction of godown to store LPG filled cylinders was no more suitable because of statutory restrictions, the respondent Corporation did not act arbitrarily in permitting change of the land site for the godown.

(2.) Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant submitted that the advertisement itself stated that if the godown could not be constructed at the land site offered and on basis of which selection had been made, the distributorship granted would automatically stand cancelled. Respondent no. 8 after selection petitioned the respondent Corporation that the original land site offered by him was no more avaialble as a school and house had subsequently been constructed in the vicinity. The government authorities had therefore declined to grant No-objection certificate to enable Licence to be obtained from the Chief Controller of Explosives. An offer was made by respondent no.8 for locating the godown at an available alternate site which was rejected by the respondent Corporation on 26.7.2011 by a reasoned order after considering all aspects. Respondent no. 8 filed CWJC No. 14344 of 2011 questioning the rejection but withdrew the writ petition on 6.2.2012. Without any change in circumstances from the time of the earlier rejection, the respondent Corporation arbitrarily allowed the request for change of location subsequently on 11.1.2012. The industry policy guideline dated 14.11.2011 relied upon in justification, being a subsequent administrative decision cannot be given retrospective effect and cannot alter terms of the advertisement. Respondent no.8 was being unduly favoured right from the inception of the selection process. There were other grave infirmities in his application sufficient to justify its rejection outright. The fact that investments may have been made and that the distributorship may have been commissioned were irrelevant factors if illegality and arbitrariness in grant of dealership was writ large. Reliance was placed on (V. Purushotham Rao v. Union of India, 2001 10 SCC 305) and (M/s. Indian Oil Corporation v. Raj Kumar Jha, 2012 2 PLJR 783) (DB).

(3.) Learned counsel for the respondent Corporation submitted that the land site originally offered by Respondent no. 8 had been considered suitable and letter of intent had also been issued. The selection process had been delayed because of certain complaints received requiring second round of interviews. In the meantime, a school and house came to be constructed in the vicinity of the lands originally offered by Respondent no. 8. The original land site was therefore no more available due to statutory restrictions in grant of No-objection certificate. The policy guidelines decided at the industry level on 14.11.2011 by the three national oil companies held that in such cases where the earlier land site was no more available because of statutory restrictions, change of land site would be permitted. The Corporation cannot be stated to have acted arbitrarily in reviewing its earlier administrative decision. It was a commercial decision taken in the best business interests. The eligibility of respondent no. 8 otherwise was not in dispute and neither was there any other irregularity alleged in selection process an issue. The industry level policy decision was also not under challenge.