Dismissed

Amit Bhaskar v. Indian OiL Corporation Ltd. And Ors.

Chhattisgarh HC20 Nov 2024WPC/1851/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner challenged a merit list for allotment of a petrol pump dealership, alleging the experience certificate of the successful bidder (Respondent No. 3) was fabricated. The High Court held that disputed questions of fact preclude writ jurisdiction and noted an investigation confirmed the certificate's genuineness.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition challenging the merit list and order rejecting objections was dismissed.

Amit Bhaskar Vs Indian OiL Corporation… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Chhattisgarh HC (2024)

¶1

1 / 5

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶4

WPC No. 1851 of 2013

¶5

Amit Bhaskar S/o Shri Awadh Bhaskar Aged About 31 Years R/o Sai Mandir Road, Kumharpara, Jarhabhata, Bilaspur, Distt Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

¶6

... Petitioner

¶7

versus

¶8

Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. and ors. Through General Manager Indian Oil Corporation Ltd, Indian Oil Bhawan, 16 Areara Hills, Jail Road, Bhopal, M.P -462011, Madhya Pradesh

¶9

The Manager Indian Oil Corporation Ltd, Raipur Divisional Office, Indian Oil Bhawan, Vip Road, Po Ravigram, Telibandha, Raipur, Distt Raipur, C.G.

¶10

Nitin Kumar Chauhan S/o Prabhulal Chauhan Aged About 33 Years R/o Ward No. 05, Bazar Muhalla, Deendayal Ward, Pali, Distt Korba, C.G, District : Korba, C.G.

¶11

M/s Shradha Fuels Vilalge Tiwarta, Distt Korba, C.G.

¶12

... Respondents

¶13

(Cause title is taken from Case Information System)

¶14

For Petitioner : Mr. Ajay Kumar Chandra, Advocate. For Respondents No. 1 & 2 : Mr. Anand Shukla, Advocate For Respondent No. 3 : Mr. Anurag Agrawal, Advocate For Respondent No.4 : Mr. Abhijeet Mishra, Advocate

¶15

Hon’ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad

¶16

Order on Board

¶17

21/11/2024

¶18

By way of the instant petition, the petitioner is challenging the merit list dated 24.05.2012 whereby respondent No.4 was ranked at No. 1 while petitioner was ranked at No.2 for allotment of Petrol Pump Outlet. The petitioner is also challenging the impugned order dated 27.11.2013, whereby the petitioner was informed that his complaints

¶19

2 / 5

¶20

dated 26.06.2012 and 23.07.2012 have been rejected.

¶21

The petitioner has sought the following relief(s):-

¶22

i To kindly quash the merit list dated 24/05/2012 (ANNEXURE P/1)

¶23

ii. To kindly order quash the impugned letter dated 27/11/2013 whereby petitioner's objections have been rejected (ANNEXURE P/2)

¶24

iii. To kindly direct the respondent corporation to consider the revaluation of the process of awarding the marks for allotment of retail outlet.

¶25

iv. To kindly direct the respondent Corporation to consider petitioner's candidature for allotment of dealership of retail outlet of Indain Oil Corporation Limited, in between Pali and Munadih on State Highway 2-A, District- Korba.

¶26

V. To kindly make any other order that may be deemed fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case.

¶27

vi. To kindly quash/set-aside the impugned letter of appointment dated 30.10.2015 (ANNEXURE P/11) issued by the respondent Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. in favour of private respondent Nitin Kumar Chouhan.

¶28

Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner as well as respondents No. 3 and other persons have applied for dealership of retail outlet of Indian Oil Corporation Limited (hereinafter referred to as ‘the IOCL’), in between Pali and Mungadih on State Highway 2-A District- Korba, which was advertised on 16.10.2011. After due verification, a merit panel was declared and respondent No. 3 was choosen for allotment of a petrol pump for the said location and the petitioner was in second number in the said list and accordingly, dealership of the petrol pump was allotted to respondent No.3 hence, this petition.

¶29

Learned counsel for the petitioner submit that the experience certificate obtained by respondent No. 3 is false and fabricated and it has never been issued in favour of respondent No.3. He would

¶30

3 / 5

¶31

further submit that the respondent No. 3 has been illegally allotted dealership of the Petrol pump and as such the same may be cancelled and instead of respondent No.3, the petitioner may be granted dealership of the said Petrol pump for the advertised location.

¶32

On the other hand Mr. Anand Shukla, learned counsel for the respondents No.1 and 2 has opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that on the complaint made by the petitioner an investigation was conducted and thereafter an investigation report was submitted in which, it has been found that the allegation made by the petitioner is incorrect and there is no anomaly in the experience certificate obtained by respondent No.3.

¶33

He further submits that the dispute raised by the petitioner cannot be adjudicated by this Court in exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and He relies upon judgment of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in case of Prajapati Aman Building Material Supplier vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh , It was held thus:

¶34

The Supreme Court in the case of M.P. Power Management Company Limited, Jabalpur vs. Sky Power Southeast Solar India Private Limited and Ors reported in (2023)2 SCC 703 has held that if there is a serious and genuine dispute relating to the liability of the State to make payment, then petition is not maintainable and the disputed question of fact cannot be made a smokescreen to guillotine a genuine claim raised in a writ petition.

¶35

The Supreme Court in the case of Surjeet Singh Sahni vs. State of U.P. and Ors reported in 2022 (4) SCALE 280 has held that no writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is maintainable where disputed question of facts are involved. Similar law has been laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of the Noble Resources Ltd. v. State of Orissa and Another reported in (2006) 10 SCC 236 , Municipal Council Gondia vs. Divi Works and Suppliers, HUF and others reported in 2022 3 JT 52 and in the case of Jayakantham and others vs. Abaykumar reported in (2017) 5 SCC 178.

¶36

Since disputed questions of facts are involved in the present case, accordingly no case in made out warranting interference.

¶37

Learned counsel for respondent No.3 has submitted that the

¶38

4 / 5

¶39

allegation lavelled against respondent No.3 by the petitioner is misconceived and false. He further submits that respondent No. 4 has rightly issued the experience certificate in favour of respondent No.3 and the petitioner in order to get the dealership has lavelled false allegation against respondent No.3.

¶40

Mr. Abhijeet Mishra, learned counsel for respondent No.4 submits that respondent No. 4, who has issued the experience certificate has verified the said certificate and has categorically stated that the respondent No. 3 was working in his petrol outlet and accordingly the experience certificate was issued in his favour and, therefore, the allegation lavelled on respondent No.3 is false and incorrect.

¶41

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.

¶42

From perusal of the documents available, it seems that the subject experience certificate was issued by respondent No. 4 and on the basis of said document and after due verification, respondent No.1 has allotted the Petrol outlet dealership to respondent No. 3 in accordance with law. The concerned authority had called objections and the petitioner raised objection stating that the experience certificate of respondent No.3 is forged and fabricated, upon which an investigation was conducted and after investigation it was found that the certificate is a true and genuine document. Respondent No.4 has also stated that it has issued the said certificate. The submission of the petitioner that no enquiry was conducted is baseless because from the record it is apparent that respondent No.1 has allotted the petrol outlet to respondent No.3 after following due verification process. The dealership was allotted to respondent No.3 way back in the year 2013 and since then he is continuously running the Petrol pump and this fact has not been disputed by the petitioner. As such, there is no merit in the instant petition.

¶43

5 / 5

¶44

Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed .

¶45

Digitally signedby VAISHALI Sd/-

¶46

LUCKY NAGARIADate: 2025.01.06 (Amitendra Kishore Prasad)

¶47

15:46:39 +0530 Judge vaishali

Amit Bhaskar v. Indian OiL Corporation Ltd. And Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amit Bhaskar v. Indian OiL Corporation Ltd. And Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Superintendent Engineer O and M Circle Vs Kailash Kedia

Khikh Ram Vs State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors.

Mohammad Rajjab Mansuri @ Mo. Rajjab Husain, Vs the State of Chhattisgarh

Hemant Kumar Mahilange Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Shreya Tiwari Vs State Govt. Of Chhattisgarh

Handicapped And Vocational Society Vs State Of Chhattisgarh and Ors.