Dismissed¶110

Pritam Attri v. Union of India

Himachal Pradesh HC10 Sept 2024CWP/387/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

LPG distributorship selection cancelled; advertised location versus revenue village/Gram Panchayat; Durgam Kshetriya Vitrak policy; draw of lots 11.01.2018; alternate godown land leased after 12.09.2017 cut-off rejected; Brochure on Unified Guidelines for Selection of LPG Distributors; Indian Oil Corporation; Chail Chowk, District Mandi, Himachal Pradesh; interim restraint on fresh draw of lots; Sanjeev Kumar Jamwal fresh-draw success; Yudhvir Singha v. Indian Oil Corporation applied; writ petition dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The advertisement issued by respondent No.2 clearly indicated that place Chail Chowk had been advertised for setting up the LPG Distributorship; it did not make any mention of a revenue village. ¶88

Pritam Attri Vs Union of India — Himachal Pradesh HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶110

Issue for consideration

Whether the land offered by the petitioner at Village Ghayan satisfied the advertised condition that the land for the LPG distributorship be located at the advertised place Chail Chowk, and whether respondent No.2's cancellation of his selection on that ground was sustainable. +1 more

¶105

Court's answer

The advertisement issued by respondent No.2 clearly indicated that place Chail Chowk had been advertised for setting up the LPG Distributorship; it did not make any mention of a revenue village.

¶88

Ratio / Principle

Chail Chowk is a separate place, distinct from Village Ghayan, even though Village Ghayan falls under Gram Panchayat Chail Chowk; documents placed on record (Tehsildar's certificate dated 16.07.2024, photographs) establish the separate identity of place Chail Chowk.

¶104

Key takeaways

Since the advertisement categorically required the land to be located at place Chail Chowk while the petitioner's land was in Village Ghayan, respondent No.2's decision cancelling the petitioner's selection was in terms of the advertisement and suffered from no error.ratio¶105
The ratio of Yudhvir Singha Versus Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. and another squarely applies to this case: the advertised location was Chail Chowk and not Village Ghayan, where the land offered by the petitioner was situated.ratio¶109

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Himachal Pradesh, Shimla (Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J.), CWP No.387 of 2018, decided 10.09.2024 — Writ petition of Pritam Attri, who emerged successful in the draw of lots held on 11.01.2018 (informed 12.01.2018) for LPG Distributorship at Chail Chowk, District Mandi (Sr. No.38, open category/Durgam Kshetriya Vitrak) advertised by Indian Oil Corporation Limited on 13.08.2017, dismissed. IOC had cancelled his selection on 23.03.2018 because the land offered at Village Ghayan was not at the advertised place Chail Chowk and no alternate land (leased before the 12.09.2017 cut-off) was offered. Held: the advertisement was for place Chail Chowk and made no mention of any revenue village; Chail Chowk is a distinct place though Village Ghayan lies within Gram Panchayat Chail Chowk; the cancellation was in terms of the advertisement and free from error; the ratio of Yudhvir Singha v. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. (CWP No.8683 of 2022, decided 16.12.2022) squarely applied. Respondent No.2-Corporation left free to proceed in accordance with law; pending miscellaneous applications disposed of.

¶1

2024:HHC:8255

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶3

CWP No.387 of 2018

¶4

Decided on: 10^th September, 2024

¶5

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Pritam Attri …..Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

.....Respondents

¶8

Union of India and others .....Respondents -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

¶9

Coram

¶10

Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua

¶11

Whether approved for reporting?

¶12

For the Petitioner: Mr. Rajiv Jiwan, Senior Advocate with Mr. Hitender Verma, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Rajinder Thakur, Central Govt. Counsel, for respondent No.1.

¶13

Mr. K.D. Sood, Senior Advocate with Mr. Het Ram Thakur, Advocate, for respondent No.2.

¶14

Mr. Sanjeev Kuthiala, Senior Advocate with Ms. Amita Chandel, Advocate, for respondent No.3/ intervener.

¶15

Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge

¶16

Petitioner was declared successful by

¶17

respondent No.2 on 12.01.2018 during draw of lots for award of Liquefied Petroleum Gas (LPG) Distributorship at Chail Chowk, District Mandi under open category (Durgam Kshetriya Vitrak) advertised on 13.08.2017. However, on

¶18

1 Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes.

¶19

¶20

2024:HHC:8255

¶21

02.02.2018, respondent No.2 declined to take any further

¶22

action on the land offered by the petitioner on the ground that the same was not located at the advertised place. Petitioner’s selection was accordingly cancelled on 23.03.2018. Hence, the dispute.

¶23

2. Facts:-

¶24

2(i). Respondent No.2-Indian Oil Corporation Limited issued an advertisement on 13.08.2017 inviting applications from eligible candidates for selection of LPG Distributors for various locations in the State of Himachal Pradesh. Location Chail Chowk in District Mandi was at Sr. No.38 of this advertisement. Relevant portion of the advertisement reads as under:-

¶25

		fgekp	y izns”k jk	T; esa,y	ihth fo	rjdksa d	h fu;qfDrgsrqlwpuk
dze la	rsy daiuh	LFkku ¼tgka ykxw gks] ogka LFkkuh; fooj.k ds lkFk½	Xkzke iapk;r	CykWd	ftyk	Js.kh	Ckktkj dk izdkj@ ,yihth fMLVªhC;wVjf”ki &:[email protected]@nqxZe {ks=h; forjd	izfrHkwfr jkf”k ¼yk[k es½	ekdsZfVax Iyku
38-	vkbZvkslh	pSypkSd	pSypkSd	Xkksgj	e.Mh	vksiu	nqxZe	4	2017_-_18

¶26

2(ii). Petitioner submitted his online application to

¶27

respondent No.2 on 12.09.2017 applying for LPG Distributorship for Chail Chowk (Sr. No.38). The application so moved by the petitioner has been placed on record as Annexure P-2. In terms of this application, the petitioner applied for location Chail Chowk, but the land offered by

¶28

¶29

2024:HHC:8255

¶30

him was in Village Ghayan, Post Office Chail Chowk, Tehsil Chachyot, District Mandi.

¶31

2(iii). Respondent No.2 held draw of lots on 11.01.2018 for selection of LPG Distributorship at the advertised location, i.e. Chail Chowk. The petitioner emerged successful in draw of lots and was accordingly informed on 12.01.2018. The communication dated 12.01.2018 also mandated completion of several codal formalities, required for carrying out field verification. Petitioner completed the codal formalities and also furnished the requisite documents. In all the documents, the description of land offered by him for LPG distributorship was given as Village Ghayan, Post Office Chail Chowk, Tehsil Chachyot, District Mandi.

¶32

2(iv). The respondents carried out field verification of the information supplied by the petitioner in his application and observed that the land offered by him, i.e. Khasra No.121, Village Ghayan, Tehsil Chachyot, District Mandi, was not within the “Village limits as per the advertised location”. This was conveyed to the petitioner on 02.02.2018. The petitioner was also informed that in terms of the brochure for selection of LPG distributorship, in case the offered land for godown/ showroom by the selected

¶33

¶34

2024:HHC:8255

¶35

candidate is not found meeting the eligibility conditions/requirements as stipulated in the advertisement/brochure/application at the field verification stage, the selected candidate can offer an alternate land, which is owned by the applicant/member of the family unit etc. as on the last date for submission of application as specified in the advertisement. The petitioner was, therefore, directed that in case he had any alternate land as per the required dimensions in line with the policy guidelines, owned by him or leased to him as on 12.09.2017 as per advertisement, he may submit the documents of the land by 09.02.2018 to enable respondent No.2 to take further action in the matter.

¶36

2(v). Petitioner disputed the decision taken by respondent No.2 that the land offered by him was not as per the advertised location. He preferred representations to respondent No.2 in this regard on 06.02.2018 and 16.02.2018. No alternate land was offered by the petitioner. Respondent No.2 on 23.03.2018, sent a communication to the petitioner that the land offered by him was in Village Ghayan, which does not fall in the advertised location Chail Chowk. Further that he had not offered any alternate land as per advertisement, therefore, his selection for the subject

¶37

¶38

2024:HHC:8255

¶39

location has been cancelled. Respondent No.2 intended conducting fresh draw of lots. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner preferred this writ petition seeking following substantive reliefs:-

¶40

“i) That the letter dated 02.02.2018 i.e. Annexure P-6 and letter dated 03.03.2018 (Annexure P-10) may kindly be quashed and set aside and the respondent No.2 may kindly be ordered to implement the order/letter dated 12.01.2018 (Annexure P-3) as the present petitioner is fulfilling all the criteria to be selected as the distributor of LPG (Durgam Kshetriy Vitarak) in Gram Panchayat Chail Chowk, District Mandi, H.P.

¶41

ii) That the respondents may kindly be restrained from conducting the fresh draw of lots going to be held on 06.03.2018 at Institute of Engineer, Nigam Vihar, Shimla at 12.20 hrs.

¶42

iii) That the respondents may kindly be directed to award the distributorship of LPG Gram Panchayat, Chail Chowk, District Mandi to the petitioner in view of the facts and circumstances narrated hereinabove.”

¶43

3. On 06.03.2018, an order was passed in the writ

¶44

petition directing that ‘online computerized draw of lots may continue, but its outcome shall not be finalized without the permission of the Court’. On 08.10.2018, further order was passed that fresh draw of lots shall be subject to the final outcome of the writ petition. Respondent No.2-Corporation was also to consider the alternative site offered by the petitioner as also the site, which might be offered by the person, who is successful in the fresh draw of lots and to submit a report to the Court. The order reads as

under:-

2024:HHC:8255

“After hearing learned counsel for the parties, it is directed that the fresh draw of lots shall be subject to the final outcome of this writ petition. Meanwhile, respondent-Corporation may revisit the alternative site, being offered by the petitioner, as also the site which might be offered by the person, who is successful in the fresh draw of lots and submit a report to the Court.

¶49

Post on 31^st October, 2018.”

¶50

Pursuant to the aforesaid orders passed in this

¶51

writ petition, respondent No.2 submitted its report that:During fresh draw of lots, the alternate site offered by the petitioner was though found suitable for construction of LPG godown, but since it was leased to him after the last date for submission of the applications, i.e. 12.09.2017, hence, it was decided not to consider the same. This aspect has not been questioned by the petitioner. The report further states that during fresh draw of lots, one Sh. Sanjeev Kumar Jamwal emerged successful. During field verification, the land offered by him at Khasra No.16, Mohal Chail Chowk, Tehsil Chachyot, District Mandi was found fit by respondent No.2 for construction of LPG godown.

¶52

Due to restraint order passed in the matter,

¶53

nothing further was done. Said Sh. Sanjeev Kumar Jamwal was impleaded as respondent No.3 in this petition on 06.03.2023.

2024:HHC:8255

4. Contentions:-

4(i). Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that:-

¶58

4(i)(a). The advertisement was issued by respondent No.2 for LPG distributorship at place Chail Chowk falling under Gram Panchayat Chail Chowk. The land was offered by the petitioner at Village Ghayan. This village falls under Gram Panchayat Chail Chowk. Village Ghayan is at about 150 meters from the building of Gram Panchayat Chail Chowk. The land offered by the petitioner is at a distance of about just 400 meters from the building of Gram Panchayat Chail Chowk. Certificate dated 24.01.2018 issued by the Village Revenue Officer has been pressed into service in respect of the above factual assertions.

¶59

4(i)(b). The land offered by the petitioner in Village Ghayan for setting up LPG distributorship at Chail Chowk satisfied the conditions of the advertisement issued by respondent No.2. The cancellation of petitioner’s selection by respondent No.2 on the premise that the land offered by him was not at Chail Chowk, is not in conformity with the stipulations in the advertisement.

¶60

4(i)(c). Respondent No.2 in its reply had tried to justify

¶61

its decision of not accepting the land offered by the

¶62

¶63

2024:HHC:8255

¶64

petitioner on the ground that the offered land was in revenue Village Ghayan and not in revenue Village Chail Chowk. This reason was fallacious as there is no revenue village or village by the name Chail Chowk. Referring to a certificate dated 24.03.2023 issued by the Village Revenue Officer, Patwar Circle Kohlu, Tehsil Chachyot, District Mandi, it was emphasized that three revenue villages by the name of Kadau, Ghayan and Chail constitute Gram Panchayat Chail Chowk. Neither there is any separate revenue village by name Chail Chowk nor the land offered by the petitioner at Village Ghayan can be said to be beyond the purview of location advertised by respondent No.2 for setting up LPG distributorship at place Chail Chowk.

¶65

4(i)(d). It was also contended that in terms of the advertisement, in case of Durgam Kshetriya Vitrak policy, the location for godown land should be within the village/ cluster of village limits as per the advertised location. Village Ghayan is within the cluster of village limits of the advertised location, therefore, the land offered by the petitioner was suitable and required to be considered for setting up of LPG godown.

¶66

¶67

2024:HHC:8255

¶68

In view of the aforesaid submissions, prayer was

¶69

made for allowing the writ petition.

¶70

4(ii). Learned Senior Counsel for respondent No.2 and

¶71

3 have submitted that the advertisement for selection of LPG distributorship issued on 13.08.2017 very specifically provided that the LPG distributorship was to be set up at place Chail Chowk. The land offered by the petitioner was in revenue Village Ghayan and not at Chail Chowk. Once the advertisement was for location Chail Chowk and when the land offered by the petitioner was not at place Chail Chowk, rather located in revenue Village Ghayan, therefore, the offered land was not found suitable as per the requirement of respondent No.2. In support of these submissions, apart from the advertisement, the provisions of Brochure on Unified Guidelines for Selection of LPG Distributors were also pressed into service. Reliance was also placed upon the decision rendered in Yudhvir Singha

¶72

Versus Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. & Anr.¹ .

¶73

4(iii). As per the Brochure on Unified Guidelines for Selection of LPG Distributors relied upon by both sides, for ‘Durgam Kshetriya Vitrak’, the land should be within the village or cluster of village limits as per the advertised

¶74

1 CWP No.8683 of 2022, decided on 16.12.2022

¶75

¶76

2024:HHC:8255

¶77

location. The ‘location’ means “the area identified for setting up of new LPG Distributor. It can be a locality/village/ cluster of villages/town or city, which is mentioned in the Notice for appointment of LPG Distributors”. ‘Village’ means “the basic unit for rural areas, which is the revenue village which has the definite surveyed boundaries. The revenue village may comprise several hamlets”.

¶78

5. Consideration:-

¶79

During pendency of the petition, respondents No.2 and 3 moved CMP Nos.13088 of 2024 and 11768 of 2024, respectively, for placing on record documents to show that location Chail Chowk, in respect of which the advertisement was issued, is a separate and well defined place. There is no objection to these applications from learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner. Hence, the documents appended therewith are taken on record. While making the submissions, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner had also urged that moving these two applications itself is suggestive of the confusion lurking in mind of respondent No.2 about the location in question, i.e. whether the location advertised was Chail Chowk or revenue village Chail Chowk. That in the reply filed by respondent No.2, the reason given for cancelling petitioner’s

¶80

¶81

2024:HHC:8255

¶82

selection was that land offered by him was not situated in revenue village Chail Chowk. Since, there is actually no revenue village called Chail Chowk, therefore, the respondents during pendency of the petition, had started to hunt for the locale Chail Chowk. When respondent No.2 was itself not clear about the advertised location as is apparent from its reply & the impugned cancellation order and during hearing of the case, sought to place on record the documents to show that Chail Chowk was a distinct place in itself, the petitioner cannot be blamed for offering land in Village Ghayan that admittedly falls in Gram Panchayat Chail Chowk and is at a distance of just about 400 meters from the building of Gram Panchayat Chail Chowk. The stand taken by respondent No.2 in its reply is at variance to the projection now being made by it in the aforesaid applications.

¶83

I have heard learned Senior Counsel for the

¶84

parties and considered the case file. My observations are as under:-

¶85

5(i). The advertisement was issued by respondent No.2 for award of LPG distributorship, clearly indicating that the place advertised was Chail Chowk; Gram Panchayat was Chail Chowk; Block was Gohar, District was

¶86

¶87

2024:HHC:8255

¶88

Mandi, category was open and; Distributorship was under Durgam Kshetriya Vitrak policy. The advertisement does not make any mention of revenue village. The advertisement clearly makes out that place Chail Chowk had been advertised for setting up LPG Distributorship.

¶89

5(ii). The land offered by the petitioner was in Village Ghayan, which is stated to be one of the three villages constituting Gram Panchayat Chail Chowk. As per the case set up by the petitioner and the documents placed on record, the land so offered by him was at 400 meters distance from the building of Gram Panchayat Chail Chowk.

¶90

There may not be any separate revenue village Chail Chowk, however, Chail Chowk is a separate place and distinct from Village Ghayan. The documents placed on record by the respondents under the aforesaid applications, are all clear indicators of Chail Chowk being recognized as a separate place. In terms of the pleadings in the applications, there are shops and commercial establishments at place Chail Chowk. There is a bus stop at Chail Chowk. A rain shelter of H.P. Public Works Department, a Fire Station of Himachal Fire Service, Banks, Post Office etc. are functional at place Chail Chowk.

¶91

¶92

2024:HHC:8255

¶93

Number of schools and other institutions are also located at

¶94

Chail Chowk. Respondent No.2 has also placed on record following certificate issued on 16.07.2024 by the Tehsildar, Chachyot at Gohar, District Mandi:-

¶95

“Certificate

¶96

It is certified that Chail Chowk comes under Patwar Circle Kohlu of Mohal Chail/51. This place falls in the jurisdiction of Gram Panchayat Chail Chowk.

¶97

Therefore, the certificate is respectfully submitted for further proceeding.

¶98

Sd/15.07.2024

¶99

Village Revenue Officer

¶100

Circle Kohlu, Tehsil Chachyot, Sd/Distt. Mandi (H.P.) Teh. Chachyot at Gohar, Distt. Mandi (H.P.) 16.07.2024”

¶101

Several photographs have also been placed on record by respondent No.2, evidencing separate identity of place Chail Chowk by capturing the commercial establishments, shops, rain shelter, Banks, Post Office, Forest Inspection Posts etc. These documents placed on record by the respondents during the pendency of the writ petition do not reflect confusion of the respondents regarding location of the place advertised for setting up the LPG distributorship. The documents are to dispel petitioner’s contention about there being no separate place in existence by the name of Chail Chowk. From the very beginning, the case of respondents No.2 had been that the

¶102

¶103

2024:HHC:8255

¶104

land offered by the petitioner was not at Chail Chowk. It was at Village Ghayan. Village Ghayan is not Chail Chowk, even though village Ghayan may be falling under Gram Panchayat Chail Chowk. Ghayan cannot be said to be the place-Chail Chowk, which was advertised by respondent No.2 for setting up the LPG distributorship. The mere fact that respondent No.2 had submitted at some places in its reply to the petition that Chail Chowk is a separate revenue village, will not mean that there was any confusion in the mind of the respondent No.2 about consideration of the land offered by the petitioner vis-à-vis clear terms of the advertisement.

¶105

5(iii). The petitioner in order to succeed has to make out a case of his own in accordance with law. The advertisement is very categoric that the land offered for LPG distributorship had to be located at place Chail Chowk, whereas, the land offered by the petitioner was not at place Chail Chowk, rather, it was in Village Ghayan falling under Gram Panchayat Chail Chowk. Under the circumstances, decision of respondent No.2 in cancelling the selection of the petitioner cannot be said to be suffering from any error. The decision was in terms of the advertisement. It is for respondent No.2 to take action in accordance with law and

¶106

¶107

2024:HHC:8255

¶108

the advertisement, keeping in view its commercial interests in issuing the advertisement for LPG Distributorship at Chail Chowk.

¶109

5(iv). In Yudhvir Singha Versus Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. and another¹ , a retail outlet was proposed at Kotgarh, Block & Tehsil Kumarsain, District Shimla. Petitioner therein offered land in Village Mangsu and not Kotgarh. A contention was raised for the petitioner that village Mangsu falls in Block Kotgarh, therefore, land offered by him should have been accepted. The Division Bench rejected the contention holding that advertised location was Kotgarh and not Mangsu. Ratio of this decision squarely applies to the instant case. The advertised location was Chail Chowk and not Village Ghayan, where the land offered by the petitioner was situated.

¶110

For the foregoing reasons, I find no merit in this writ petition. The same is accordingly dismissed. Respondent No.2-Corporation is free to proceed further in the matter in accordance with law. All pending miscellaneous applications to stand disposed of.

¶111

Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge

¶112

September 10, 2024 Mukesh

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Communication dated 23.03.2018 from respondent No.2 cancelling the petitioner's selection for LPG Distributorship at Chail Chowk on the ground that the land offered by him was in Village Ghayan, outside the advertised location, and that no alternate land was offered; writ relief also sought quashing of letters dated 02.02.2018 (Annexure P-6) and 03.03.2018 (Annexure P-10)¶36
Indian Oil Corporation Limited (respondent No.2) · 23.03.2018
Prior proceeding
Advertisement dated 13.08.2017 issued by respondent No.2 for selection of LPG Distributors at various locations in Himachal Pradesh; Chail Chowk, District Mandi at Sr. No.38 under open category (Durgam Kshetriya Vitrak)¶24
Prior proceeding
Petitioner submitted online application on 12.09.2017 for LPG Distributorship for Chail Chowk (Sr. No.38), offering land at Village Ghayan, Post Office Chail Chowk, Tehsil Chachyot, District Mandi (Annexure P-2)¶27
Prior proceeding
Draw of lots held on 11.01.2018; petitioner emerged successful and was informed on 12.01.2018 with directions to complete codal formalities¶31
Prior proceeding
Field verification found the land offered (Khasra No.121, Village Ghayan) not within the village limits as per the advertised location; conveyed to petitioner on 02.02.2018 with opportunity to offer alternate land by 09.02.2018¶32
Prior proceeding
Petitioner disputed the decision and preferred representations on 06.02.2018 and 16.02.2018; no alternate land offered¶36
Prior proceeding
Interim order dated 06.03.2018 in the writ petition permitting online computerized draw of lots to continue but not to be finalized without the Court's permission¶43
Prior proceeding
Interim order dated 08.10.2018 making fresh draw of lots subject to final outcome of the writ petition and directing respondent-Corporation to consider alternative sites and report to the Court¶44
Prior proceeding
Pursuant to interim orders, respondent No.2 reported that petitioner's alternate site was rejected as leased after the application cut-off date 12.09.2017; in the fresh draw Sh. Sanjeev Kumar Jamwal emerged successful and his land at Khasra No.16, Mohal Chail Chowk was found fit for construction of LPG godown¶51
Prior proceeding
Sh. Sanjeev Kumar Jamwal impleaded as respondent No.3 on 06.03.2023¶53

Pritam Attri v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pritam Attri v. Union of India

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

State of Hp and Another Vs M/s Mengi Engineering Company

M/S Ramesh Hydro Power (P) Ltd. Anda Nother Vs State of Hp and Others

Pankaj Sharma Vs State of Hp and Others

Sohan Singh Vs Bhadar Singh

The Mining Area Land Losers and Affected Transport Cooperative Society Ltd. Vs State of Hp and Ors.

Mayadhar Sharma Deceased through Lrs Jagdish Sharma and Others Vs NHAI and Another