SANJU DEVI Vs. CHAIRMAN & DIRECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is directed against the cancallation of selection of the petitioner for allotment of retail outlet dealership of Kishan Sewa Kendra of M/s Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. at Sangarawa Goriya Road, District Sikar under open (W) category.

(2.) Contention of Mr. Anil Mehta, learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner was placed at serial No.1 in the merit panel for allotment of the aforesaid KSK retail outlet. Subsequently, a complaint against the petitioner was made by one Smt. Suman Swami, who was her competitor and was placed at serial No.2 in the merit panel. On the basis of aforesaid complaint, the respondentIOCL has cancelled the petitioner's selection for allotment of aforesaid KSK retail outlet dealership vide order dated 05.11.2012. It has been contended that the allegation was made in the complaint that the petitioner has concealed the fact that the title of the land offered by her for setting up a KSK retail outlet was not clear inasmuch as the said land was in a joint khatedari and the petitioner did not produce the attested affidavit of co-khatedar Smt. Sallu, mother of Chhitar Mal. Smt. Sallu, who was aged 90 years, has since expired and Chhitar Mal was the one sold the said land to the petitioner. Petitioner's name has since been entered in the revenue records and land mutated in her favour.

(3.) Moreover, before passing the impugned order, the petitioner was neither given any notice, nor an opportunity of hearing. Learned counsel for the petitioner has cited before this Court the guidelines issued by respondent-IOCL for allotment of dealership of Kishan Seva Kendra wherein clause 18(B) clearly provides that "when a decision is taken to investigate the complaint, the investigation will be done by a Senior Official of Oil Company and who will pass a speaking order after giving due opportunity to the complainant etc. It is contended that that when an opportunity of hearing is given to the complainant, such opportunity was also required to be given to the petitioner, who is likely to be adversely affected by the decision of the authority, which is evident from the use of the word "etc.".