NEELAM CHATURVEDI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) DISPUTE in this matter pertains to allotment of a retail outlet of Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. at Halena in District Bharatpur located on National Highway No. 11. The petitioner has prayed for a mandamus to the respondents directing them to cancel the candidature of respondent no. 3 Smt. Sadhana Dagur and not to issue Letter of Intent to her and instead issue such Letter of Intent to the petitioner Smt. Neelam Chaturvedi who was placed at serial number 2 in the select panel. An additional prayer has been made that if in the meantime, the Letter of Intent is issued to the non petitioner no. 3 the same be quashed and set aside.

(2.) FACTUAL matrix of the case is that the Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd, (hereinafter referred to as `the Corporation') a Government of India undertaking, published an advertisement in Rajasthan Patrika on 2nd January, 2004 inviting applications for allotment of 243 Retail Outlets in the State of Rajasthan. Applications were also invited for allotment of a retail outlet at main Halena crossing at National Highway No. 11 in open category though reserved for women candidates. The petitioner as also the respondent No. 3 applied in response to the said advertisement. According to the petitioner, the land offered by her was suitable being in conformity with the norms laid down by Circular dated 17. 10. 03 issued by Ministry of Road Transport and Highways (for short `the MORTH norms') for access of fuel station. But the respondent Corporation has illegally awarded maximum marks for the land offered by the respondent no. 3 even though the land offered by her in the application form did not fulfill the requirement of clause 6. 1. 1. 1 (i) of said Circular. Retail outlet was illegally allotted to her. Later when this was discovered, the respondent Corporation served the notice dated 22. 06. 03 upon the respondent No. 3 for cancellation of such allotment. Instead of, however, cancelling the allotment, the respondent Corporation has given an opportunity to the respondent No. 3 for providing another piece of land, as per condition No. 3 of the advertisement. If the land offered by the respondent No. 3 was not found suitable, then as per para 17 of internal guidelines of the respondent Corporation the retail outlet ought to have been offered to the petitioner. Action of the respondents in giving another chance to the respondent No. 3 and not allotting the retail outlet to the petitioner is liable to be annulled being arbitrary, unreasonable and illegal.

(3.) SHRI J. K. Singhi, the learned counsel for the respondent Corporation argued that allocation of 35 marks out of 100 marks for the purpose of selection of a dealer are made not for the suitability of the land, but for the capacity of the candidate to provide the land and infrastructure / facilities and there was nothing wrong in allocating such marks to the respondent no. 3 because she was considered by the Selection Committee very much capable of providing the land. She however offered the land in terms of the specifications indicated in the advertisement alone which did not conform to the MORTH specifications because such specifications were not notified in the advertisement. SHRI J. K. Singhi, the learned counsel for the respondent Corporation relied on the judgment of division bench of this Court in 2003 (UC) WLC 116 and 2005 (4) WLC 540.