Dismissed

Sibani Shankar Sahoo v. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.

Orissa HC7 Dec 2021WP(C)/11769/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Supreme Court order in ORISSA HC writ petition. The Court held that a petitioner's submitted notarized lease deed was not a valid compliant document for an oil company dealership lottery, as a registered deed was mandatory. The writ petition was dismissed for lack of merit.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed as petitioner failed to fulfill essential criteria of having a registered lease deed on application date.

Sibani Shankar Sahoo Vs Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. — Service and Employment | Orissa HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

W.P.(C) No.11769 Of 2019 (Through hybrid mode)

¶3

Sibani Shankar Sahoo

¶4

Petitioner

¶5

Mr. G.N. Sahu, Advocate

¶6

-versus-

¶7

Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. and another

¶8

…. Opposite parties

¶9

Mr. S. Nanda, Advocate for Indian Oil Corporation

¶10

CORAM: JUSTICE ARINDAM SINHA

Order No.

05.

ORDER 07.12.2021

1. Mr. Sahu, learned advocate appears on behalf of petitioner and submits, his client applied for dealership of Retail Outlet (RO) from the oil company. He was successful in the lottery for selection. It is thereafter by impugned communication dated 12^th May, 2019, his client’s candidature was rejected saying, inter alia, as follows:

¶15

“ 3. However, it is observed that land documents submitted by you are not valid for considering the offered land under Group 1.”

¶16

He clarifies, with the application his client had submitted notarized lease deed. On being successful in the lottery his client caused registration of the deed and submitted the same.

¶17

2. Mr. Nanda, learned advocate appears on behalf of the oil company and draws attention to the application containing petitioner’s

¶18

Page 1 of 1

¶19

// 2 //

¶20

declaration on information given therein. He points out, petitioner had given date of the lease deed, then simply notarized, under the column requiring date of registration/mutation. He also points out from information given in the prescribed application form that date of reckoning would be date of the application. At the verification stage this was discovered.

¶21

3. He relies on judgment dated 8^th September, 2015 in Civil Appeal Nos. 6928-6929 of 2015 ( Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. Swapnil Singh) paragraph-9 quoted below:

¶22

“We are unable to accept this contention of learned Counsel for the Respondent. The brochure and the application from clearly require the applicant to have a registered lease deed in her name. What is shown to us is a notarized document and admittedly this document, even though it may have been in existence, was formalised into a lease agreement only on 20^th December, 2012 and that was registered on 21^st December, 2012. The notarized document, therefore, does not advance the case of the Respondent any further. Therefore, it is quite clear that the Respondent was not eligible on the date of application, i.e., 13^th September, 2013. Under the circumstances, we allow those appeals and set aside the order passed by the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court. No. costs.”

¶23

4. It is clear that petitioner could not fulfil an essential criteria of having a registered document of lease in respect of offered plot on date of his application. As such there is no merit in the writ petition.

¶24

Page 2 of 3

¶25

// 3 //

¶26

5. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.

¶27

(Arindam Sinha)

¶28

Judge

¶29

Sks

¶30

Page 3 of 3

Sibani Shankar Sahoo v. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sibani Shankar Sahoo v. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.

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

M/S.Orissa Machinery and Sanitary Vs State of Odisha

M/Slaxmi Sanitary and Engineering Vs State of Odisha

M/S.M.M.Enterpreises Vs State of Odisha

Sushant Ku.Majhi Vs Hpc Ltd.

Rudra Pr.Tripathy Vs Sasmita Tripathy

Bijaya Ku.Jena Vs State Bank of India