Dismissed

Manish Kumar v. Indian Oil Corporation and Another

Himachal Pradesh HC2 Sept 2021CWP/1403/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged the rejection of the petitioner's application for a Scheduled Caste reservation in a retail outlet dealership allotted by the respondent Corporation. The court examined the discrepancy between the advertised location requirement (New NH-503A) and the location of the land offered by the petitioner (MDR-84).

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous applications are disposed of.

Manish Kumar Vs Indian Oil Corporation and Another — Property and Title | Himachal Pradesh HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH,

¶2

SHIMLA

¶3

ON THE 2^nd DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2021

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY MOHAN GOEL

¶6

CIVIL WRIT PETITION No.1403 of 2019

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

MANISH KUMAR, SON OF SHRI ASHOK KUMAR, AGED 26 YEARS, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE CHATTARA, TEHSIL AND DISTRICT UNA, H.P.

¶9

….PETITIONER.

¶10

(BY SHRI Y.P. SOOD, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND

¶12

1. INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD. BLOCK NO.21, COMMERCIAL COMPLEX, SDA KUSUMPTI, SHIMLA171009 (HP), THROUGH ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER.

¶13

2. DIVISIONAL SALES MANAGER, INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD., BLOCK NO.21, COMMERCIAL COMPLEX, SDA KUSUMPTI, SHIMLA171009 (HP).

¶14

RESPONDENTS.

¶15

¶16

(BY MR. K.D. SOOD, SENIOR ADVOCATE, WITH MR. MUKUL SOOD, ADVOCATE)

¶17

RESERVED ON: 24.08.2021

¶18

Whether approved for reporting ?¹ Yes

¶19

This Petition coming on for pronouncement of judgment this day, the Court passed the following:

¶20

J U D G M E N T

¶21

The petitioner has filed this writ petition, praying for issuance of a direction to the respondent-Corporation to allot him a Retail Outlet Dealership, in the location “within 2 kilometers of village Thana Kalan on Una to Bangana Road (New NH-503A)”. He has also prayed for quashing of Annexure P-10, dated 17.06.2019. The case of the petitioner is that vide advertisement dated 25.11.2008, applications were invited by the respondent-Corporation for allotment of Retail Outlet Dealership and one such dealership was advertised to be allotted “within 2 kilometers of village Thana Kalan on Una to Bangana Road (New NH-503A)”. This Retail Outlet Dealership was to be allotted in favour of a person belonging to Scheduled Caste Category. Petitioner being eligible for allotment of this dealership, submitted his application online, on 12.12.2008. At the relevant time, he was possessing land on lease, measuring 0016-71 hectares (4 Kanal 7 Marlas), i.e. more than the requirement of

¶22

¶23

respondent-Corporation. Respondents vide communication dated 25.01.2019 informed the petitioner that he had qualified for Draw of Lots for selection qua the allotment of Retail Outlet Dealership and was called upon to be present for the Draw of Lots.

¶24

In the Draw of Lots, the petitioner was declared as the successful candidate in terms of Annexure P-4, i.e. communication dated 06.02.2019. Petitioner complied with the formalities, he was called upon to meet with and was informed by the respondents vide communication dated 22.05.2019 (Annexure P-5) that the Land Evaluation Committee will visit the site on 31.05.2019.

¶25

This date was preponed to 23.05.2019 and on the said date, the Committee found the land offered by the petitioner to be in conformity with the requirements of the respondent-Corporation.

¶26

The grievance of the petitioner is that vide Anneuxre P-10, dated 17.06.2019, he was conveyed that the Land Evaluation Committee which visited the site on 23.05.2019, has found the site offered by the petitioner not as per the required norms, therefore, the petitioner was not found eligible for allotment of dealership.

¶27

According to the petitioner, Annexure P-10 does not contains any reason as to why his candidature was cancelled and otherwise also the arbitrary cancellation of the candidature of the petitioner is not sustainable in law. According to him, he being fully eligible for being allotted the Retail Outlet Dealership has been

¶28

¶29

wrongly held to be ineligible for the allotment of the same. It is in this background, he has approached the Court with the prayers already enumerated hereinabove.

¶30

The petition is resisted by the respondent-Corporation, inter aila , on the ground that the location offered by the petitioner falls on MDR-84, as was found during the land survey conducted by the Land Evaluation Committee, and the same was not in terms of the advertisement i.e. within 2 kilometers of village Thana Kalan on Una to Bangana Road (New NH-503A), district Una. According to respondent-Corporation, since the offered land by petitioner was not as per the terms of the advertisement and within the advertised stretch, therefore, his candidature was rightly rejected. It is also the stand of respondent-Corporation that the report of the Land Evaluation Committee was duly acknowledged by the applicant who has signed the same, Copy thereof stands appended with the reply as Annexure R1/1.

¶31

By way of rejoinder, the petitioner has reiterated his stand and in response to the contention of the respondentCorporation that the land does not falls within the advertised stretch, the petitioner has stated that the land offered by him was within the parameters laid down by the respondents in village Thana Kalan on Una to Bangana Road.

¶32

¶33

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the pleadings minutely.

¶34

During the course of hearing of this writ petition, this Court had directed respondent-Corporation to produce the original record pertaining to the case including the advertisement in issue, which was duly produced before the Court by respondentCorporation.

¶35

It is not in dispute that in terms of the advertisement, the location advertised was within 2 kilometers of village Thana Kalan on Una to Bangana Road (New NH-503A), district Una. Annexure P-2 is the copy of the application submitted by the petitioner. The location offered by the petitioner as mentioned in the application was within 2 kilometers of village Thana Kalan on Una to Bangana Road (New NH-503A). Thus, it was categorically held out by the petitioner that the site being offered by him was within 2 kilometers of village Thana Kalan on Una to Bangana Road (New NH503A) as was advertised by the Corporation. The specific stand of the respondent-Corporation in its reply is that the site offered by the petitioner does not falls on National Highway 503A, but falls on MDR-84. This is also borne out from Annexure R1/A, which is the report of the Land Evaluation Committee, in which it is mentioned that the proposed land offered by the petitioner does not fulfills the conditions of being situated on the National Highway.

¶36

¶37

During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the contention of respondent-Corporation that the site offered by petitioner was not inconsonance with the advertisement, was bad because there is no National Highway near village Thana Kalan and there was only one road near said village on which the petitioner was offering land. If the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is to be believed, then the only conclusion which can be drawn is that the holding out which was made by the petitioner in the application submitted by him in response to the advertisement issued by respondent-Corporation was incorrect. Though, it has been contended before the Court on behalf of the petitioner that there is no National Highway near village Thana Kalan on Una to Bangana Road, yet in the application form submitted by the petitioner, he had categorically mentioned that the offered location was “within 2 kilometers of village Thana Kalan on Una to Bangana Road ( New NH-503A)”.

¶38

In this background, the petitioner cannot be permitted to blow hot and cold in the same breath because when he held out in the application form submitted by him that he was offering the land situated on New NH 503A , now he cannot be permitted to take the plea that there is no National Highway near village Thana Kalan etc. The advertisement has also not been challenged on this ground.

¶39

¶40

Incidently, the report of the Land Evaluation Committee (Annexure R1/1) is duly signed by the petitioner and one does not finds any objection having been raised in the same by the petitioner that the reasons mentioned therein were incorrect with regard to the proposed land being situated on MDR-84 and not fulfilling the criteria of being situated on a National Highway.

¶41

In this view of the matter, as apparently, the site offered by the petitioner was not in terms of the advertisement issued by respondent No.2, this Court does not finds any infirmity in the rejection of his candidature by respondent-Corporation and the petition is accordingly, dismissed. No order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, stand disposed of. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.

¶42

September 02, 2021 (Ajay Mohan Goel) (rishi) Judge

Manish Kumar v. Indian Oil Corporation and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manish Kumar v. Indian Oil Corporation and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Umesh Kumar Vs State of Hp

Sushil Chauhan Vs State of Hp

Mohammad Mehraj (Deceased through LRs Amzad Ali) Vs Hem Thakur

Rajender Singh Vs State of Hp and Anr.

Rakesh Kumar Alias Golu Vs State of Hp

Surinder Singh Vs Anil Khachi