Chandrashekhar Vaishnav Vs Indian Oil Corporation Limited

¶1

1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

WPC No. 2853 of 2024

¶5

Chandrashekhar Vaishnav S/o Lav Kumar Vaishnav, Aged About 36 Years R/o Near Raghuraj School, Pandariya, District Kawardha, Chhattisgarh.

¶6

---- Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

Indian Oil Corporation Limited Through Its Chairman Having Its Registered Office At Indian Oil Bhavan, G-9, Ali Yavar Jung Marg, Bandra (East), Mumbai 400051, Maharashtra.

¶9

Indial Oil Corporation Limited Raipur Divisional Office Through The Head Of Divisional Office, Indian Oil Bhavan, Vip Road, Telibandha, Raipur, District Raipur , Chhattisgarh.

¶10

---- Respondents

¶11

For Petitioner : Mr. Pankaj Singh, Advocate For Respondents : Mr. Anand Shukla, Advocate

¶12

SB: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Parth Prateem Sahu

¶13

Order On Board

¶14

18/07/2024

¶15

Petitioner has filed this writ petition being aggrieved by the rejection of his candidature for allotment of retail outlet dealership (petrol pump) by respondent Indian Oil Corporation.

¶16

Learned counsel for petitioner submits that respondent Oil Corporation issued an advertisement, Annexure P-1, inviting applications for appointment / award of retail outlet dealership petrol pump on the given location at Sakri, District Bilaspur. In pursuance of the said advertisement, the Petitioner applied for the same and for the purpose of establishment of petrol pump, he offered land belonging to one Smt. Karuna Sharma.

¶17

2

¶18

However, the candidature of petitioner was rejected on hyper technical ground that petitioner has not timely submitted land offer letter in the form an affidavit (Appendix-III) of the third party with whom petitioner entered into agreement of lease of land for a period of 19 years 11 months. He contended that along with application Form, petitioner has annexed the agreement entered with owner of land offered. Petitioner was sole candidate for the site in question, therefore, some leniency ought to have been shown by respondent Corporation and should have considered Appendix-III submitted by petitioner on a later date i.e. 7.1.2024, instead of rejecting his candidature. In support of his contention, he placed reliance on the order passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in Writ Petition No.18769/2017, parties being Rajesh Parmar v. Under Secretary, Petroleum Corporation and ors, decided on 26.03.2019.

¶19

Learned counsel for respondent Corporation vehemently opposes the submissions of learned counsel for petitioner and submits that petitioner has not enclosed requisite documents along with application for allotment of retail outlet dealership and as such, his candidature was found to be ineligible. Allotment of retail outlet dealership is governed by the Brochure issued by respondent Corporation for ‘Selection of Dealers for Regular and Rural Retail Outlets’ which contained guidelines on selection of dealers. As per guidelines, petitioner being Group-2 applicant was required to submit ‘firm offer’ of

¶20

3

¶21

land which includes offer from third party based on agreement to purchase/long term lease and the land offer letter in the form of an affidavit, as prescribed in Appendix-III, tendered by the third party. This affidavit is to be submitted on or before the date of application. Petitioner failed to submit affidavit (Appendix-III) within last date fixed for submitting application form i.e. 28.9.2023, and submitted the same only on 7.1.2024. He also pointed out that under clause (ii) of Note-III of the brochure it is clearly mentioned that consent letter (s) in the form of affidavit (Appendix III) of a date which is prior to the date of application, shall only be considered. Referring to clause 23 of the guidelines, he submits that non-submission of affidavit in prescribed format i.e. Appendix III, is mentioned in Note-III (ii) is non-rectifiable deficiency in application. Hence, the relief as claimed by petitioner in this writ petition cannot be granted.

¶22

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents available in record.

¶23

Respondent-Indian Oil Corporation Limited had issued an advertisement for appointment of regular/rural retail outlet (petrol pump) dealership in various districts of Chhattisgarh including District Bilaspur. Last date for submission of application was 28.9.2023. Petitioner submitted online application for allotment of retail outlet dealership (petrol pump) at the location ‘on right hand side from Sakri Pendridih bypass chowk, Sakri to KM Stone 10 on NH-130A (Bilaspur

¶24

4

¶25

Mungeli Road), while going from Bilaspur to Mungeli’, offering the land owned by one Karuna Sharma for establishment of retail outlet dealership. Petitioner being sole candidate for allotment of dealership for establishment of petrol pump at location, subject matter of writ petition, has been provisionally selected. Subsequently, upon scrutiny of supporting documents submitted by petitioner along with application form, the candidature of petitioner was rejected by respondent on the ground that Appendix-III is not submitted on or before the date of application, which is an incurable defect. Aggrieved therewith petitioner submitted application dated 8.2.2024 explaining the reason for delayed submission of Appendix-III stating that petitioner was not aware about submission of land offer letter in the shape of an affidavit (Appendix III) and could come to know about the same only after provisional allotment of retail outlet dealership. Respondent vide letter dated 12.2.2024 rejected request of the petitioner on the ground that defect on the part of petitioner falls within list of non-rectifiable deficiencies mentioned in Clause 23 of the Brochure.

¶26

In respect of selection of dealers for regular and rural retail outlets through draw of lots/bidding process, respondent Corporation has issued the Brochure for Selection of Dealers for Regular and Rural Retail Outlets dated 0.06.2024. This brochure contains various provisions governing the grant of dealership for the retail outlet and prescribing the modalities for allotment of retail outlet dealership.

¶27

5

¶28

Clause 4 of the Brochure lays down the eligibility criteria for individual applicants etc. Sub-clause (vi) of the Brochure pertains to land (applicable to all categories) which classifies the applicants into three group based on the land offered or land not offered by them in application form. The applicants having ‘Firm Offer’ for a suitable piece of land for purchase or long term lease for a period of minimum 19 years 11 months or as advertised by the Corporation were classified in Group 2.

¶29

Sub-clause (vi) (a) of Clause 4 of the Brochure stipulates that the land offered for allotment should be available to the applicant on the date of submission of his application against a long term lease executed by "all co-owners". The consequence of non execution of such lease deed is also provided in the said Clause. Sub-clause (vi) (a) of Clause 4 reads thus:-

¶30

“a) The land should be available with the applicant as on the date of application and should have minimum lease of 19 years and 11 months (as advertised by respective oil company) from the date or after the date of advertisement but not later than the date of application. If the offered land is on Long-term lease and there are multiple owners, then lease deed should be executed by all co-owners of the offered plot. In case lease deed is not executed by all co-owners; such lease deed shall be treated as invalid."

¶31

As per clause 4 (i), the ‘firm offer’ of land will include land offer from third party based on agreement to purchase/long term lease and land offer letter in the form an affidavit (Appendix III) tendered by the third party (land owner) should be available

¶32

6

¶33

with applicant on or before the date of application, to establish the ownership of land offered for the dealership. Thus "firm offer" is a term used under the Brochure to describe eligibility of such applicants who may not offer any land owned by them or land leased to them, along with their application for allotment.

¶34

Clause 4 (p) provides for verification of the supporting documents submitted by the selected candidate, post selection, will be carried out at the time of Scrutiny/Field Verification of Credentials. Note-3 appended to Clause 4 of the Brochure stipulates that consent letter (s) in the form of affidavit (Appendix – III) of a date which is prior to date of application, shall only be considered. Note-3 (ii) reads thus:-

¶35

“ii. Consent letter (s) in the form of affidavit (Appendix-III) of a date which is prior to date of application, shall only be considered.”

¶36

Clause 23 of the Brochure pertains to the list of non-rectifiable deficiencies in applications form for retail outlet dealer selection and sub-clause (s) reads thus:-

¶37

“23. List of Non-rectifiable deficiencies in applicationsThe following deficiencies in the application form for Retail Outlet Dealer Selection are non-rectifiable and such applications will not be considered for further selection process:-

¶38

(a) to (r) xxxxxxxxxxx

¶39

s) Affidavit Appendix – III is of a date later than the date of application.”

¶40

From all that has been narrated and quoted herein above it is clear that candidates for allotment of retail outlet dealerships

¶41

7

¶42

are divided into three Categories/Groups based on the land offered or not in application form. The land offer letter in the form an affidavit (Appendix-III) tendered by third party (land owner) on or before the date of application, must be available with candidate applying for retail outlet dealership under Group-2 category to establish ownership of land offered. Verification of supporting documents etc. submitted by the provisionally selected candidate will be carried out at the time of scrutiny. Letter in the form of an affidavit (Appendix-III) of a date which is prior to date of application shall only be considered. Submission of affidavit (Appendix -III) of a date later than the date of application is a non-rectifiable deficiency under Clause 26.

¶43

Perused the representation, Annexure P-6, submitted by petitioner after rejection of his candidature, wherein it has been admitted by petitioner that Appendix-III in the format provided in the Brochure was not tendered on or before the date of application and the reason assigned therefor is ‘lack of knowledge’. This representation go on to show that application for allotment of retail outlet dealership was submitted online on 28.9.2023 and Appendix-III is tendered by the land owners on 7.1.2024 i.e. after the cut off date.

¶44

As per terms of the brochure and the guidelines, the eligibility of petitioner had to be established on the date of submission of application for allotment of retail outlet dealership. The guidelines for selection of dealers for retail outlets clearly

¶45

8

¶46

stipulate that in case the date of affidavit (Appendix III), is later than the date of application, then the case is one of a nonrectifiable deficiencies as per Clause 23 and application for allotment of retail outlet dealership will not be considered for further selection process. A’dmittedly, Appendix III was not tendered by third party (land owner) on or before the date of application, which makes application of petitioner suffer from a deficiency falling within the list of non-rectifiable deficiencies mentioned in Clause 23 of the Brochure. It is well settled proposition of law that in contractual matters, the parties are bound by terms and conditions of advertisement/ brochure. The Court cannot ask any party to act contrary to terms and conditions of the advertisement/Brochure.

¶47

Therefore, in the considered opinion of this Court, petitioner was not eligible for being considered for allotment/award of retail outlet dealership (petrol pump), subject matter of writ petition, and as such, the decision which has been arrived at by the respondent authorities i.e. declaring the petitioner ineligible for RO dealership due to deficiency in his application of non-rectifiable nature, requires no interference.

¶48

In the wake of above discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petition has no substance, the same is liable to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.

¶49

Sd/(Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge

¶50

roshan/-

Chandrashekhar Vaishnav v. Indian Oil Corporation Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chandrashekhar Vaishnav v. Indian Oil Corporation Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mohan Dhruv Vs Government of India

Dashrath Kunjam Vs the State of Chhattisgarh

Ramji Singh Ravi @ Ramkumar Ravi Vs Assistant Engineer, Cspdcl

Satwan Verma Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Savita Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Janman Utthan Samiti Balco Nagar Korba Vs State of Chhattisgarh