Dismissed

Harpalsinh Rjunsinh Vaghela v. Indian Oil Corporation Limited

Gujarat HC5 Aug 2019SCA/7970/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the rejection of a candidate for LPG distributorship. The rejection stemmed from a discrepancy between the lease deed registration date declared in the application and the date on the produced registered deed. The Court held that no illegality existed.

What did the court decide?

The petitions were dismissed by the High Court; no relief was granted to the petitioner.

Harpalsinh Rjunsinh Vaghela Vs Indian Oil… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Gujarat HC (2019)

¶1

C/SCA/7970/2018 ORDER

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

¶3

R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7970 of 2018 With

¶4

R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7972 of 2018

¶5

================================================================ HARPALSINH RJUNSINH VAGHELA

¶6

Versus INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED

¶7

================================================================ Appearance:

¶8

MR. R.R.MARSHALL, LEARNED SENIOR ADVOCATE assisted by MR ARPIT A KAPADIA(3974) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1

¶9

MR. M.R.BHATT, LEARNED SENIOR ADVOCATE with MR. MUNJAAL BHATT, for the Respondent(s) No. 1

¶10

================================================================ CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.Y. KOGJE

¶11

Date : 05/08/2019 COMMON ORAL ORDER

¶12

[1] These two petitions are arising out of the same dispute pertaining to cancellation of the candidature of the petitioners for LPG Distributorship of the respondent oil company. Considering the common contentions raised in both the matters and identical issue involved, with the consent of both the sides, these two petitions are taken up jointly for hearing and disposal. The facts are therefore recorded from Special Civil Application No.7970 of 2018.

¶13

[2] The petition is filed for seeking direction to quash and set aside the communication dated 05.04.2018 by which the petitioner was intimated for his candidature for LPG Distributorship is rejected on account of the land offered for the show-room and godown, the lease deed was registered on 17.01.2018 after the last date of submission of documents.

¶14

Page 1 of 8

¶15

C/SCA/7970/2018 ORDER

¶16

[3] Learned senior advocate Mr. R.R.Marshall assisted by learned advocate Mr. Arpit Kapadia submitted that the petitioner was declared as successful candidate in the draw of lots conducted on 12.01.2018 for selection of LPG Distributorship at location Samakhiyali, District: Kutch and the petitioner was asked to deposit an amount of Rs.40,000/- in the line of Unified Guidelines for selection of LPG Distributors. Accordingly, the petitioner has deposited such amount. The petitioner was thereafter, by communication dated 20.02.2018 was informed that the documents submitted by the petitioner against the godown does not meet with the requirement as per the advertisement and was therefore, called upon to provide alternate land which is in the name of the applicant or the member of the family unit.

¶17

[3.1] Learned senior advocate submitted that the selection of LPG Distributors is governed by the guidelines for selection where family unit is defined and Clause 7 and 8 are for the purpose of deciding eligibility. It is submitted that after the application given by the petitioner alongwith other details, the petitioner was found eligible in all respects and therefore, permitted to participate in the draw of lots and when he was declared successful under the guise of Field Verification of Credentials (for short “FVC”), the respondent-company has considered the very same documents of eligibility and disqualified the petitioner. Such an action on the part of the respondent-oil company firstly in considering the application of the petitioner to meet with all eligibility criteria then permitted the petitioner to participate in the draw of lots and after having succeeded under the draw of lots, rejected the candidature on the ground of disqualification for not being eligible, is not only illogical, but unreasonable. Such procedure is also

¶18

Page 2 of 8

¶19

C/SCA/7970/2018 ORDER

¶20

unreasonable and detrimental to the candidates who are with great difficulty selected and thereafter, called another draw of lots amongst the remaining candidates and would in fact act against the public policy. He thereafter, referred to the guidelines of the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas which had to issue the clarification on account of the prevailing confusion and sometimes rigid interpretation of the dealership selection guidelines by the officers of the respondent oil company. He submits that the strict interpretation by the oil company was further relaxed which is evident from the Industry Record Note on reckoning of lease period for considering application for selection of LPG Distributorship dated 04.02.2015 would demonstrate that it was the object of the oil company to encourage maximum participants and reduce the hyper-technical objections and treat the candidates who had offered the lands with the lease period of 15 years covering the agreement between the oil company and the private candidate to be enough for meeting with the eligibility criteria.

¶21

[3.2] It is submitted that the unregistered document of lease deed was considered by the respondent oil company to treat the petitioner eligible to participate in “Draw of Lots” proceedings and after the FVC, the respondent-oil company has treated the very same document to disqualify the candidature of petitioner and that too after being selected by the draw of lots.

¶22

[3.3] Learned advocate relied upon unreported judgment of this Court in the case of Manjibhai Anadabhai Kanol vs/. Union of India and another in Special Civil Application No.19418 of 2015 with Special Civil Application No.4549 of

¶23

Page 3 of 8

¶24

C/SCA/7970/2018 ORDER

¶25

2018 dated 29.07.2019 to contend that the very process of disqualifying the candidate after treating him fully eligible on the basis of interpretation of some clause at the stage of FVC, disqualifying the candidate has not to be the function at the stage of FVC.

¶26

[4] As against this, learned senior advocate Mr. M.R.Bhatt with learned advocate Mr. Munjaal Bhatt appearing for the respondent submitted that the selection of distributorship is being governed by the guidelines for selection of Regular LPG Distributors which is defined family unit and Clause 7 and 8 provides for eligibility criteria amongst other candidates with regards to the ownership of the land on which the LPG show room and godown is to be located. The guidelines also very specifically states the meaning of word “Own” with reference to Clause 7 and 8. it is submitted that the word “Own” in terms of lease deed necessarily has to be a registered lease deed as the lease period required is of 15 years which is more than 3 years period.

¶27

[4.1] He drew attention of this Court to the application form of the petitioner where he has mentioned in column 5 which pertains to details of land for show-room or ready built show room at the advertised location where the petitioner has mentioned under the head of date of registration of lease as 17.07.2017. The date of advertisement is 16.06.2017 and as per the advertisement, the last date of application is 17.08.2017. He then draws attention of this Court to the registered lease deed furnished by the petitioner which is admittedly registered on 17.01.2018 and therefore, the petitioner did not meet with the eligibility criteria of having registered lease deed in the name of the petitioner on the last

¶28

Page 4 of 8

¶29

C/SCA/7970/2018 ORDER

¶30

date of advertisement as provided under the advertisement and in fact in the field visit for credentials, it was found that the information given regarding the land for show-room at survey No.40 of National Highway No.8 near Amizra Hotel, Samakhiyali Taluka dated 17.07.2018 was an incorrect information when compared with the documents provided in support and hence, in view of the declaration given by the applicant itself under column 6 of the application form, the petitioner was declared disqualified and the same was communicated under the impugned communication.

¶31

[4.2] Learned advocate relied upon the CAV judgment dated 25.07.2018 of this Court in the case of Mr. Bnuty Dineshhai Agrawal v/s. Indian Oil Corporation in Special Civil Application No.1068 of 2016 to submit that in an identical fact situation pertaining to the registration of the lease deed, the lease deed came to be registered after the petitioner was treated to be disqualified due to lack of registered lease deed and therefore, the Court rejected that petition on the ground that the petitioner was not meeting with the eligibility criteria.

¶32

[5] The Court has considered the rival submissions and perused the documents placed on record. From the facts, the chronology of events is that the petitioner had applied against advertisement dated 16.06.2017 for award of LPG Distributorship at Taluka Samakhiyali, District: Kutch under open category. As per the advertisement, the last date of submitting application is 17.08.2017. The petitioner had made an application against that advertisement on 17.07.2017. Pursuant to such application, the draw of lots was conducted on 12.01.2018. On 13.01.2018, the petitioner was communicated about being declared as successful candidate

¶33

Page 5 of 8

¶34

C/SCA/7970/2018 ORDER

¶35

and called upon the petitioner to submit the documents within seven working days for the purpose of field verification. Accordingly, the petitioner had tendered the documents and the company found the document namely registered lease deed not to be in accordance with the information supplied in the application form and therefore, issued a communication dated 20.02.2018 giving one more chance to the petitioner to furnish an alternate land for the godown purpose which is in the name of the applicant himself or the member of family unit. As the petitioner would not produce such alternate land and that the registered lease deed was not as per the requirement of advertisement, it appears that the candidature of the petitioner was rejected. The Court has perused the application at Annexure-R1, wherein in column No.5 which is meant for the details of land available for the setting up of show-room/godown, the date of registration of lease deed is mentioned to be of 17.07.2017. The registered lease deed that is produced on record on page-21 of the petition at AnnexureD would indicate that the lease deed is dated 17.01.2018 and is produced for registration on the same day i.e. on 17.01.2018. Meaning thereby, the said registered lease deed was not in conformity with the registered lease deed mentioned in the application form. In view of clause 7 which provides that in case if the land for godown and show-room by the selected candidate which is shown in the application is not to be suitable at the time of FVC, the selected candidate can offer alternate land which is owned by the applicant/member of the family unit as on the last date of submission of application as specified in the advertisement and hence, the petitioner was given communication dated 20.02.2018 calling him to provide alternate land as provided under the guidelines.

¶36

Page 6 of 8

¶37

C/SCA/7970/2018 ORDER

¶38

This in itself will not create any right in favour of the petitioner to hold on to the candidature on the basis of the registered lease deed which was not in existence on the date of last date of application as per the advertisement.

¶39

[6] In view of the aforesaid facts, it cannot be said that the respondent company has committed any illegality in issuing the impugned communication.

¶40

[7] The judgment relied upon by the petitioner in the case of Manjibhai Anadabhai (Supra) operated in the different set of facts which pertain to the validity of period of lease whether to consider starting point of lease to be from the date of advertisement or from the date on which the lease deed came into operation. Such issue was already clarified under the subsequent guidelines by the Ministry and in facts of that case the Court has therefore, concluded that the issue of existing lease period from the date of advertisement in the name of the applicant could have been decided on the basis of the contents of the application itself and could not have waited till the stage of FVC. It is in context of such facts the petition was allowed directing fresh advertisement for the purpose of distribution at the relevant location. The facts being quite different, the judgment would not apply to the present case.

¶41

[8] The judgment of this Court in the case of Mr. Bnuty Dineshhai (Supra), the facts indicate that the advertisement was issued on 30.09.2013 for the purpose of award of LPG Distributorship. The last date of application being 31.10.2013 and the petitioner there in was selected by draw of lots held on 11.08.2014 and on 12.01.2015, the petitioner was informed that his candidature could not be accepted. The ground of

¶42

Page 7 of 8

¶43

C/SCA/7970/2018 ORDER

¶44

rejection was document dated 29.10.2013 which the petitioner had declared to be registered lease deed in his favour. However, on verification at the time of FVC, it was found that such document was not registered lease deed and lease deed that the petitioner wanted to rely upon was dated 20.06.2013 and the same was registered on 19.01.2015 i.e. subsequent to the last date of submission of application. In these facts, this Court did not interfere with the decision and dismissed the petition.

¶45

[9] In the present case also, it is clear that the registered leased deed which was mentioned in the application was not the lease deed which was supplied when the self attested documents were called for and therefore, on account of variance at the time of FVC, the candidature of the petitioner was correctly was rejected. The Court does not find any merit in interfering these petitions and hence, same deserve to be and are hereby dismissed. Notice is discharged.

¶46

(A.Y. KOGJE, J)

¶47

SIDDHARTH

¶48

Page 8 of 8

Harpalsinh Rjunsinh Vaghela v. Indian Oil Corporation Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Harpalsinh Rjunsinh Vaghela v. Indian Oil Corporation Limited

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

Shivabhai @ Shivam Budhabhai Vasava Vs State of Gujarat

Hirabhai Khodabhai Dangar Vs State of Gujarat

Valabhai Savabhai Bharvad Vs State of Gujarat

Bhikhabhai Govindbhai Chauhan Vs Paschim Gujarat Vij Company Ltd.

Kasturben Bhogilal Patel Vs State of Gujarat

Januben Karshanbhai Dafda Vs Bharat Petrolium Corporation Limited