Allowed

Rajeshbhai Mathurdas Patel v. General Manager Northwest Zone

Gujarat HC2 Apr 2019SCA/5916/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an Article 226 petition challenging a notice to offer an alternative location for an LPG distributorship due to a mismatch between the advertised village and the petitioner's offered village, the court allowed the petition. It directed the Petroleum Company to give the petitioner one final chance to submit a location within the specific advertised village, disregarding the 'last date' condition

What did the court decide?

The petitioner was directed to be offered one chance to submit an alternative location in Village Shamlaji on or before 20th April 2019, without considering the last date submission condition.

Rajeshbhai Mathurdas Patel Vs General Manager… — Service and Employment | Gujarat HC (2019)

¶1

C/SCA/5916/2018 JUDGMENT

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

¶3

R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5916 of 2018

¶4

FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

¶5

HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.Y. KOGJE Sd/-

¶6

================================================================

¶7

1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?	No
2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ?	No
3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?	No
4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India or any order made thereunder ?	No

¶8

================================================================

¶9

RAJESHBHAI MATHURDAS PATEL

¶10

Versus

¶11

GENERAL MANAGER NORTHWEST ZONE

¶12

================================================================

¶13

Appearance:

¶14

MR PRABHAV A MEHTA(2009) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 MS MINOO A SHAH(774) for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2 NOTICE SERVED BY DS(5) for the Respondent(s) No. 3

¶15

================================================================

¶16

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.Y. KOGJE

¶17

Date : 02/04/2019

¶18

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶19

RULE . Learned Advocate Ms. Minoo A. Shah waives service of

¶20

Rule on behalf of the respondents No.1 and 2.

¶21

This petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India is filed

¶22

Page 1 of 8

¶23

C/SCA/5916/2018 JUDGMENT

¶24

challenging a communication dated 06.04.2018 by the respondent no.3 by which the petitioner who was selected for operating a showroom/ godown was directed to offer an alternative land for the same purpose or offer of the respondent Oil Company would stand withdrawn.

¶25

Learned Advocate for the petitioner submits that pursuant to the public advertisement issued for the purpose of opening of showroom and godown for distribution of LPG, the petitioner had applied for village Shamlaji. It is submitted that the petitioner was selected for village Shamlaji and the communication was also issued to that effect. However, it appears that when the physical verification was carried out the Inspecting Officer did not find the location offered by the petitioner to be as per the requirement and as per the location advertised and therefore the impugned communication was issued.

¶26

Learned Advocate submits that the decision of holding that the location offered by the petitioner which was located at survey no.26 of village Rudardi, taluka Bhiloda was very much within the Gram Panchayat of Shamlaji and therefore, was the location for which the advertisement was issued. Learned Advocate has drawn attention of this Court to the Annexure-IV which is the certificate issued by Talati Cum Mantri to the effect that the location offered by the petitioner was falling within the area of Shamlaji Gram Panchayat.

¶27

Page 2 of 8

¶28

C/SCA/5916/2018 JUDGMENT

¶29

Learned Advocate drew attention of this Court to the various definitions which are mentioned in the brochure on Unified Guidelines for Selection of LPG Distributors drawing attention to certain definitions –Gramin Vitarak clause c (i.), c (h.), Village C (m.) area of operation. It is submitted that considering these definitions also, the location offered by the petitioner would be suitable for the purpose of LPG distribution.

¶30

Learned Advocate for the petitioner submitted that the Inspecting Officer has himself had instructed the petitioner to receive a certificate to satisfy the authorities that village Rudardi would fall within the jurisdiction of Shamlaji Gram Panchayat and therefore, the petitioner had received the certificate from Shamlaji Gram Panchayat to the effect that the location falls within area governed by Shamlaji Gram Panchayat. The petitioner lastly submits that pending the petition, as per the requirement of the impugned communication dated 06.04.2018, the petitioner is ready and willing to offer a location which would be suitable for the purpose of distribution and would be located within a village Shamlaji.

¶31

As against this, learned Advocate for the respondent Corporation relying upon the affidavit in reply filed on behalf of the Corporation opposes the petition stating that the advertisement had specified the place where the LPG distributorship was available. It is

¶32

Page 3 of 8

¶33

C/SCA/5916/2018 JUDGMENT

¶34

submitted that the advertisement was categoric and the location mentioned was also identifiable. She draws attention of this Court to the public advertisement at page no.58 where the location in question is at item no.86 and under the column of location, 'Shamlaji' is mentioned and under the column of Gram Panchayat also, 'Shamlaji' is mentioned under the block 'Bhiloda' and District 'Aravalli'. It is submitted that the location offered by the petitioner for village Rudardi does not fall within the location mentioned in the advertisement. It is submitted that as per the guidelines the physical inspection was carried out at on site on 25.01.2018 and the Inspecting Team has clearly communicated to the petitioner that the location offered within village Rudardi is not as per the suitable norms and that it is observed in the Verification Report that the petitioner was called upon to offer an alternative location also. It is submitted that the P 1A Form which is appended to such Verification Report has the signature of the petitioner and on that day also the petitioner has stated that he had no other alternative land to offer for verification. It is submitted that despite this in compliance with the principles of natural justice, the petitioner was communicated that the impugned letter dated 06.04.2018 calling upon the petitioner to offer an alternative location and period of seven days was given for the petitioner to offer the alternative location.

¶35

It is submitted that the respondent Company has acted reasonably as the advertisement consisted of giving location for a

¶36

Page 4 of 8

¶37

C/SCA/5916/2018 JUDGMENT

¶38

showroom as well as for godown insofar as the location of godown is concerned the petitioner had offered the same at Venpur which was also not within the Village Shamlaji however as the location was for the purpose of godown, the offer made by the petitioner for the location of godown was not objected to by the respondent Company. It is submitted that the purpose of the location of showroom is specifically for the ease of accessibility of the villagers especially the ladies of the village and the present location offered at Rudardi would not only fall within village Shamlaji but would cause inconvenience to the villagers of the Shamlaji.

¶39

Learned Advocate for the respondent relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court firstly in case of SHIV KANT YADAV V/S INDIAN OIL CORPN. AND OTHERS reported in (2007) 4 SCC 410 and SANJAY KUMAR JHA V/S PRAKASH CHANDRA CHAUDHARY AND OTHERS reported in (2019) 2 SCC 499 to substantiate whatever is offered by the petitioner has to be a genuine offer and breach or discrepancy would render such offer to be an unqualified one and it is open for the respondent company to take a decision on such an offer which do not match with the advertisement.

¶40

As against this, learned Advocate for the petitioner submits that the petitioner in paragraph 6 has categorically stated that it was the Inspecting Officer who had called upon the petitioner to produce a certificate of a particular nature so as to see that the

¶41

Page 5 of 8

¶42

C/SCA/5916/2018 JUDGMENT

¶43

location offered would fall within the Gram Panchayat of Shamlaji. It is submitted that the averments made in this paragraph 6 are uncontroverted.

¶44

I have considered the rival submissions and have gone through the documents on record. The issue pertains to the offer of LPG distributorship for the godown as well as showroom at the location advertised by the respondent Petroleum Company wherein in the public advertisement at item no.86, the location specified is that of Shamlaji. The offer made by the petitioner for the location for the showroom by petitioner was of village Rudardi. The certificate on which the reliance is placed by the petitioner is dated 18.01.2018. Moreover, if the certificate is perused it appears to be certificate issued by Shamlaji group gram Panchayat the order of which is separate offer to village Shamlaji, Venpur, Dolatpura village Rudardi. This being so, it is apparent that though the village Rudardi fall within the working limit of the Shamlaji Gram Panchayat, but the same cannot be said to be located within Shamlaji. This Court is of the view that the public advertisement made at item no.86 the location and village is categorically identifiable and therefore there cannot be any compromise on the location. This Court is of the view that the respondent Company after the due diligence has come out with the exact location at which the showroom and the godown are required to be located and in doing so the respondent Company would have invested research

¶45

Page 6 of 8

¶46

C/SCA/5916/2018 JUDGMENT

¶47

to identify the requirement of the population of that particular area. The Court is therefore, of the opinion that the location offered at village Rudardi is not suitable or a location identified in the advertisement.

¶48

Insofar as the impugned communication is concerned, as the communication itself is giving a chance to the petitioner to make an offer of an alternative land and as the petitioner is now ready and willing to offer the location which is in village Shamlaji, the Court is of the opinion that the one more chance should be offered to the petitioner to make good of his offer on the basis of alternate location. The submission of learned advocate for the respondent that the petitioner was given seven days and therefore has now missed the bus, would run contrary to the spirit as impugned communication mentioned as under:

¶49

“1. Land offered for Showroom (Survey No.26 at Village Rudardi, Taluka-Bhiloda, District-Aravalli) in the application form is not at advertised location (Shamlaji). Thus it is not as per the requirements in the Boucher on unified guidelines for selection of LPG distributor.

¶50

So you are requested to offer an alternate land which is owned by the applicant/ member of the “Family Unit”/ parents (includes Step Father/ Step Mother), grandparents(both maternal and paternal), Brother/Sister(including Step Brother & Step Sister), Son/Daughter (including step Son/Step Daughter), Sonin-law/ Daughter-in-law of the applicant or the spouse (in the case of married applicant) as on the last date for submission of application as specified either in the advertisement or corrigendum if any.”

¶51

In the instant case, it is only at the stage of physical

¶52

Page 7 of 8

¶53

C/SCA/5916/2018 JUDGMENT

¶54

verification carried out by the respondent Company that the suitability of the location was brought in question and therefore, at that stage, to accept an alternative land which will be in consonance with the requirement of advertisement, more particularly the requirement of being in possession of a land as on the last date of submission of application would mean that the offer made by the impugned communication on 06.04.2018 was only on paper without any spirit in it.

¶55

In view of the aforesaid, it is directed that the petitioner be offered one chance for making available an alternative location at Village Shamlaji. As per the aforesaid directions, the petitioner shall make offer on or before the 20^th April 2019. It will be open for the respondent Corporation to undertake the due procedure as prescribed as per the guidelines; however condition mentioned in the impugned communication regarding the alternative land available as on the last date of submission of application is not to be considered by the respondent Company.

¶56

In view of the aforesaid, the petition is allowed to the aforesaid extent. Rule is made absolute accordingly. Direct service is permitted.

Sd/-

(A.Y. KOGJE, J)

URIL RANA

Page 8 of 8

Rajeshbhai Mathurdas Patel v. General Manager Northwest Zone

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajeshbhai Mathurdas Patel v. General Manager Northwest Zone

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Harijan Karukhima Matang Vs State of Gujarat

Pachan Hira Harijan Vs State of Gujarat

Mangbai @ Gangbai Valji Harijan Vs State of Gujarat

Dy. Engineer ( O and M), Dakshin Gujarat Vij Company Limited Vs Kalyanbhai Baburao Shahane

Patidar Embroidery Yarn Vs Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation Udyog Bhavan

Chauhan Bilalbhai Fatehmohammad Vs Gujarat Wakf Board