NEHA KUMAR Vs. INDIAN OIL COMPANY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present writ petition has been filed for setting aside the letter bearing Ref. No. 15453769031850 dtd. 1/10/2019 issued by the head of Divisional Office, Dhanbad, Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., whereby the candidature of the petitioner for allotment of retail outlet dealership at within 1.0 Km from +2 High School towards Satgawan on LHS on Gawan-Satgawan Road, Block-Gawan, District-Giridih under Open Category has not been found eligible for consideration on the ground of invalid land documents stating the reason that as per land documents and family tree, the land does not fall under Group-1. Further prayer has been made for issuance of direction upon the respondents to consider the petitioner's claim for grant of dealership for the said location in her favour.

(2.) The factual background of the case as stated in the writ petition is that the respondents issued advertisement dtd. 25/11/2018 inviting applications for grant of retail outlet at Gawan-Satgawan Road, Block-Gawan, District-Giridih under Open Category. In pursuance of the said advertisement, the petitioner made an application for grant of retail outlet dealership and she was finally declared successful in draw of lots held on 27/6/2019 for selection of retail outlet dealership for the said location, subject to compliance of terms and conditions of the respondent-Corporation in this regard. The result of said draw of lots was intimated to the petitioner by the respondent no. 2 vide its letter dtd. 30/6/2019. Subsequently, another letter dtd. 30/6/2019 was issued to the petitioner by the respondent no. 2, wherein she was requested to remit an amount of Rs.40,000.00 online as initial security deposit and submit the set of documents as specified in the said letter within 10 days. Since the petitioner did not deposit the amount of initial security as well as specified documents within the prescribed time limit, she received another letter dtd. 10/7/2019 requesting her to remit the said amount online and to submit the specified documents within 10 days, failing which her candidature was liable to be rejected without any further notice. In pursuance of the said direction, the petitioner remitted an amount of Rs.40,000.00 in favour of the IOCL through State Bank of India. The petitioner also submitted the documents along with the said amount as required by the said letter and in support of land documents, she submitted an affidavit giving the family tree which would show that the land offered by the petitioner belongs to her husband. Though the petitioner had furnished all the documents required by the respondent-Corporation, she was issued impugned letter dtd. 1/10/2019 intimating that her candidature for award of retail outlet dealership was found ineligible due to the reason that her offered land did not fall under Group-1 category as per the land documents and the family tree submitted by her.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that according to the Guidelines as contained in "Brochure On Selection of Dealers For Regular and Rural Retail Outlets Through Draw of Lots/Bidding Process" dtd. 24/11/2018 (hereinafter referred to as "the Brochure") issued by the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas, Government of India, an offered land is categorized into three categories i.e., Group 1, 2 and 3. The respondents, however, wrongly considered the candidature of the petitioner for selection along with Group-3 applicants. Since the petitioner had offered the land belonging to her husband and his family, there was no reason that the land offered by her could be treated as not falling under Group-1 category. It is also submitted that the impugned letter is cryptic in nature as no specific reason has been assigned in the same as to why the land offered by the petitioner has been held as not falling under Group-1 category. Group-3 refers to those candidates who have not offered land in the application. The petitioner had submitted the family tree on affidavit giving details of the land and the respondents have not given any particular reason for holding the candidature of the petitioner ineligible in Group-1. It is further submitted that the respondents have accepted security amount of Rs.40,000.00 which was demanded by them and as such, they should not have rejected the petitioner's application in a cryptic manner. The ground for rejection of the petitioner's application explained in the counter affidavit was not mentioned in the impugned order and as such, the respondents cannot be allowed to supplement the same at a later stage. The petitioner in her application had proposed to offer the land owned by Hari Mahto, who had three sons. The father-in-law of the petitioner namely, Shankar Prasad Yadav is the elder son of Hari Mahto and as such, the respondents could have asked the petitioner to submit "no objection" from the other family members of the joint family. However, the petitioner's application for grant of retail outlet dealership was rejected without providing any opportunity to show the ownership of the offered land. It is also submitted that the petitioner was not aware of the fact that the grandfather-in-law does not come under the definition of the family members. Had it been known to the petitioner, she would have certainly got the land transferred in the name of her husband by making appropriate application.