Petitioner challenged revision of his L-1 selection for a BPCL rural retail outlet dealership at Lakhanpur after a complaint that his land lay in Juna Lakhanpur, within Nagar Panchayat limits, not the advertised rural area. The Court held the location did not qualify as rural and upheld the revised result.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1 / 15
Digitally signed by RAGHVENDRA JAT
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WPC No. 414 of 2012
Order Reserved on 24.09.2024 Order Delivered on 05.11.2024
... Petitioner
versus
... Respondents
For Petitioner : Mr. Prafull N. Bharat, Sr. Advocate along with Mr. Jitendra Pali, Advocate and Mr. Ved Chandrakar, Advocate.
2 / 15
For Respondent : Mr. Sourabh Sharma, Advocate. Nos. 1 & 2 For Respondent : Mr. Manoj Paranjape, Advocate. No. 3.
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad
C A V Order
(ii)To kindly quash the order vide no.
3 / 15
RPR.TER.COMP (DSB) dated 06.02.2012 (Annexure P/1) issued by the respondent No. 1. (iii)To kindly direct the respondent Corporation to consider the petitioner for appointment as dealer in village Lakhanpur as he stood first in the merit rank.
(iv)To kindly restrain the Corporation to finalize the allotment of the rural retail outlet aforesaid in favour of the respondent no. 3.
(v)Any other order that may be deemed fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case may also kindly be made including award of the cost in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents."
4 / 15
retail outlet has been declared failed. The petitioner has secured 102.27 marks while the respondent No. 3 has secured 73.58 marks. Since the respondent No. 3 was unsuccessful, therefore, he made a complaint before respondent No. 2 stating that the land of the petitioner is located at Juna Lakhanpur which is a different revenue village whereas the advertisement was issued for Lakhanpur (Gramin), District-Surguja. Since the petitioner was declared successful he was waiting for other formalities so that he may start his work for opening the outlet. However, all of sudden behind the back of the petitioner and on the basis of complaint made by respondent No. 3, while considering the complaint made by respondent No. 3, the respondent Nos. 1 & 2 came to the conclusion that the land of the petitioner does not fall in the advertise location i.e. Lakhanpur and the petitioner has wrongly been selected as L-1. On the basis of aforesaid submission it was found that he has been wrongly assessed out of 25 marks instead of 35 marks. According to the petitioner village Juna Lakhanpur has been merged in into the Lakhanpur Nagar Panchayat area due to the notification issued by the Government of Chhattisgarh in the official gazette on 07.02.2009. The boundaries of the Nagar Panchayat Lakhanpur has been included with the boundaries of existing revenue village Juna Lakhanpur and Nagar Panchayat Lakhanpur as such the contention of respondent authorities is perse illegal. It was further submitted that even if the marks of the petitioner may be revised. The petitioner will remain L-1. Before passing impugned order, the petitioner whose interest has been accrued has not been called and in violation of principles of natural justice, the impugned order has been passed on the behest of respondent No. 3 only in order to any how select respondent No. 3 for opening of petrolium outlet. Since the principles of natural justice
5 / 15
has been violated, hence, there is no way to except to file this petition as such the impugned order is required to be quashed and the authorities are required to be directed to start process for opening of petrol outlet in favour of petitioner.
6 / 15
land of the petitioner was inspected on 03.11.2011 as well as the land of the respondent. According to respondent Nos. 1 & 2, the petitioner himself has misdirected. Since the location of the petitioner was different from the advertised location as such on the basis of report of the committee impugned order has been passed which is in accordance with law and does not call for any interference by this Hon’ble Court.
7 / 15
Advocate and Mr. Ved Chandrakar, Advocate submit that the impugned order dated 06.02.2012 is perse illegal and arbitrary and it has been passed only to satisfy the complaint of respondent No. 3. Since the application for retail outlet/ dealership of respondent No. 3 has been rejected, therefore, he has made a frivolous complaint against the petitioner which is not in accordance with law. The petitioner has applied for retail outlet/ dealership for Lakhanpur, his land is situated at Juna Lakhanpur which comes within the limits of Nagar Panchayat Lakhanpur as such in the interview he has granted 27.77 marks and he was selected for advertised location Lakhanpur. The respondent Nos. 1 & 2 have completed procedure for appointment of retail outlet dealer in accordance with law at the time of selection, the respondent No. 3 has not made any objection and he participated in the process, however, when he could not be selected in order to frustrate the claim of the petitioner, he has filed frivolous complaint stating that Juna Lakhanpur has not been mentioned in the advertisement as such he cannot be selected as such the land of the petitioner situated at Juna Lakhanpur cannot be selected for dealership/ retail outlet. Once the dealership has been declared by the oil company, it cannot be revised again only on the instance of any complaint made by respondent No. 3 and unsuccessful person. Mr. Prafull N. Bharat, Sr. Advocate placed reliance upon a judgment passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Swadeshi Cotton Mills Etc. Etc. Vs. Union of India Etc. Etc. AIR 1981 SC 818. Paragraph 42 reads as under:-
“42. In short, the general principle- as distinguished from an absolute rule of uniform application- seems to be that where a statute does not, in terms, exclude this rule of prior hearing but contemplates a post decisional hearing amounting to a full review of the original order on merits,
8 / 15
then such a statute would be construed as excluding the audi alteram partem rule at the pre- decisional stage. Conversely, if the statute conferring the power is silent with regard to the giving of a pre-decisional hearing to the person affected and the administrative decision taken by the authority involves civil consequences of a grave nature, and no full review or appeal on merits against that decision is provided, courts will be extremely reluctant to construe such a statute as excluding the duty of affording even a minimal hearing shorn of all its formal trappings and dilatory features at the pre-decisional Stage, unless, viewed pragmatically, it would paralyse the administrative process or frustrate the need for utmost promptitude. In short
this rule of fairplay "must not be jettisoned save in very exceptional circumstances where compulsive necessity so demands”. The court must make every effort to salvage this cardinal rule to the maximum extent possible, with situational modifications. But, to recall the words of Bhagwati, J., the core of it must, however, remain, namely, that the person affected must have reasonable opportunity of being heard and the hearing must be a genuine bearing and not an empty public relations exercise”.
9 / 15
committee verified the area/location and the marks given for the said area it was found that the petitioner has wrongly been selected and as such the committee after verification has passed impugned order which cannot be called faulted with. Even otherwise also the scope under article 226 of Constitution of India is very limited in this respect and the Hon’ble Supreme Court has passed various judgments in respect of the said dispute regarding location of the outlet according to which the object behind the requirement of suitable particular place is to provide better facility to local residence and therefore, it would be upon the oil company to advertise a better location for the benefit of general public and when the location is specific by dealing provisions the area cannot be extended from in bark place as such the petition filed by the petitioner is sense merit and the same is required to be rejected. In support of his submission, he placed reliance upon a judgment passed by Hon’ble Supreme
Court in Sanjay Kumar Shukla Vs. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. reported in (2014) 3 SCC 493 . Paragraph 17 reads as under:-
17. In Air India Ltd. v. Cochin International Airport Ltd. there was a further reiteration of the said principle in the following terms: (SCC pp. 623-24, para 7)
"7. The law relating to award of a contract by the State, its corporations and bodies acting as instrumentalities and agencies of the Government has been settled by the decision of this Court in Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. International Airport Authority of India, Fertilizer Corpn. Kamgar Union v. Union of India, CCE v. Dunlop India Ltd., Tata Cellular v Union of India. Ramniklal N. Bhutta v. State of Maharashtra and Raunaq International Ltd. v. I.V.R. Construction Ltd. The award of a contract, whether it is by
a private party or by a public body or the State, is essentially a commercial transaction. In arriving at a
10 / 15
commercial decision considerations which are paramount are commercial considerations. The State can choose its own method to arrive at a decision. It can fix its own terms of invitation to tender and that is not open to judicial scrutiny. It can enter into negotiations before finally deciding to accept one of the offers made to it. Price need not always be the sole criterion for awarding a contract. It is free to grant any relaxation, for bona fide reasons, if the tender conditions permit such a relaxation. It may not accept the offer even though it happens to be the highest or the lowest. But the State, its corporations, instrumentalities and agencies are bound to adhere to the norms, standards and procedures laid down by them and cannot depart from them arbitrarily. Though that decision is not amenable to judicial review, the court can examine the decision-making process and interfere if it is found vitiated by mala fides, unreasonableness and arbitrariness. The State, its corporations, instrumentalities and agencies have the public duty to be fair to all concerned. Even when some defect is found in the decision-making process the court must exercise its discretionary power under Article 226 with great caution and should exercise it only in furtherance of public interest and not merely on the making out of a legal point. The court should always keep the larger public interest in mind in order to decide whether its intervention is called for or not. Only when it comes to a conclusion that overwhelming public interest requires interference, the court should intervene."
11 / 15
wrongly selected for the said area and was given 27.77 marks for that area, however, when the respondent No. 3 has made a complaint a committee was constituted for verification of the said fact and upon verification the impugned order has been passed which is a reasoned order. In support of his submission, he placed reliance upon a judgment passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Naseem Bano (Smt.) Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. reported in 1993 Supp (4) SCC 46 . Paragraph 9 reads as under:-
“9. The aforesaid reply would show that on behalf of respondents 1 to 4, it was not disputed that 40 per cent posts which have to be filled up by promotion had not been filled up and the denial of promotion to the appellant was justified on the sole ground that she was not qualified to be promoted to L.T. grade. This shows that in the pleadings before the High Court, there was no contest on the question that the post of L.T. grade which was sanctioned on August 29, 1977 was required to be filled up by promotion for the reason that 40 per cent posts had not been so filled. Even though there was no contest on this question the High Court has gone into it and has held that the appellant has failed to establish her case that at the time of the appointment of respondent 6 by direct recruitment 40 per cent of the total number of posts in the College were not filled up by promotion as prescribed by Regulation 5(2)(a) of the Regulations. Since no dispute was raised on behalf of respondents 1 to 4 in their reply to the averments made by the appellant in the writ petition that 40 per cent of the total number of posts had not been filled by promotion, inasmuch as the said averments had not been controverted, the High Court should have proceeded on the basis that the said averments had been admitted by respondents”.
12 / 15
at Lakhanpur (Rural) area.
| Parameter | Sub-heads | Description | Marks | Evaluation |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Land and | Suitable | Having “own | 35 | Based on the |
| infrastructur | land for |
land” or |
evaluation of | |
| e (Max. 35 | retail outlet | having land | the | |
| marks) | on longlease | committee |
13 / 15
| (registered) | as explained | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| for a minimum | in 14(i) |
||
| period of 15 years as on date of application |
above. | ||
| Having “firm offer” of land |
25 Max. Marks |
||
| Finance Financially |
Ready | ||
| (Max. 25 sound |
availability of | ||
| marks) | Finance (20 marks) |
||
| Liquid cash in | 12 | Based on |
|
| the form of | verifying the | ||
| bank balance, | documents | ||
| Fixed | submitted. | ||
| deposits, | Valuation | ||
| shares of |
report duly | ||
| listed | certified by | ||
| companies | Govt. | ||
| etc. | Approved | ||
| Fixed and |
4 | Valuers in | |
| movable | support of | ||
| assets | assets is |
||
| includes own land, buildings, |
necessary. | ||
| shops, house, vehicles, etc. |
14 / 15
| Income |
|---|
| includes |
| agricultural |
| income, |
| business |
| income, |
| interest; rent, |
| royalty, etc. |
| duly |
| supported by |
| documentary |
| evidence. |
allotment of dealership of petroleum outlet is for rural area (gramin) of Lakhanpur and according to advertisement it was issued for opening of rural area (gramin) retail outlet and so far as rural area (gramin) retail outlet is concerned the land could not be on the National Highway or the State Highway meaning thereby that it would be situated in the rural area (gramin) and not on any National or State Highway. Juna, Lakhanpur is on the Nagar Panchayat area which cannot be termed to be a rural area. From the Annexure P/08 and Annexure P/09 filed by the petitioner it seems that the revenue village Juna, Lakhanpur has been merged into Nagar Panchayat, Lakhanpur as such it does not fulfill criteria of rural area and as such the respondent authorities upon compliant made by respondent No. 2 has rightly revised the result in respect of location and have rightly passed the impugned order dated 06.02.2012 which in my opinion is a correct finding recorded by the respondent authorities and it cannot be interfered with by this Court as such on the basis of aforesaid discussion the petition seems to be sense merit.
15 / 15
Sd/-
(Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge
Raghu Jat
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Corporation could revise the dealership selection result after a complaint that the petitioner's land at Juna Lakhanpur was not in the advertised rural location.
Whether the impugned order violated principles of natural justice by not hearing the petitioner before revising his L-1 selection.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Swadeshi Cotton Mills Etc. Etc. Vs. Union of India Etc. Etc.Relied on¶10
AIR 1981 SC 818 · Who else cites this
Sanjay Kumar Shukla Vs. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd.Relied on¶11
(2014) 3 SCC 493 · Who else cites this
Naseem Bano (Smt.) Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.Relied on¶12
1993 Supp (4) SCC 46 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Abhishek Jaiswal
Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited through its General Manager
Territory Manager (Retail) Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd.
Amit Singh Dev
Amitendra Kishore Prasad
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
