Dismissed

Rajeev Kumar Thakur v. the Union of India and Ors.

Patna HC30 Aug 2012L.P.A/771/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Patna High Court dismissed an appeal challenging the allotment of a petroleum dealership to a rival applicant. Upholding the Corporation's discretion, the Court refused to interfere with the subjective assessment of fixed assets and the genuineness of the respondent's lease title during the agency grant process.

What did the court decide?

Letters Patent Appeal against the dismissal of the underlying Writ Petition was dismissed in limine. Interlocutory Application regarding the lease deed was disposed of.

Rajeev Kumar Thakur Vs the Union of India and Ors. — Property and Title | Patna HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Letters Patent Appeal No.771 of 2012 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 15804 of 2011 With Interlocutory Application No. 4432 of 2012 And Interlocutory Application No. 4909 of 2012 In Letters Patent Appeal No.771 of 2012

¶2

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

¶3

Rajeev Kumar Thakur S/o Vijay Kumar Thakur R/ Vill.- Majhoura, P.O. & P.S.- Bahera, District – Darbhanga.

¶4

.... .... Petitoner/Appellant/s

¶5

Versus

¶6

The Union of India through the Secretary Deptt. of Petroleum and Natural Gas, Govt. of India, New Delhi

¶7

The Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. through the General Manager Bharat Bhawan, 2nd Floor, Plot No. 31, Kit Scheme No. 118, Prince Golam Mohammad Shah Road, Near Doordarshan Kendra, Kolkatta- 700095

¶8

The Area Marketing Manager, Bihar Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd., Aashiana Chamber, 3rd Floor, Exhibition Road, Patna-800001

¶9

The Territory Manager Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd., Barauni Begusarai, Bihar

¶10

Sanjeev Kumar Choudhary S/o Chakrapani Choudhary R/o VillageNehra, P.S.- Manigachhi, District- Darbhanga

¶11

.... .... Respondents/Respondent/s

¶12

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

¶13

For the Appellant/s : Mr. Lalit Kishore, Sr. Advocate and Mr. Gautam Kumar Kejriwal, Advocate. For the Union of India : Mr. P.L Jaiswal, CGC

¶14

For the Corporation (BPCL): Mr. Sanjay Singh, Advocate.

¶15

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

¶16

CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

¶17

and

¶18

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH ORAL ORDER

¶19

Patna High Court LPA No.771 of 2012 (5) dt.30-08-2012

¶20

2 / 5

¶21

(Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE)

¶22

30-08-2012

¶23

Re. Interlocutory Application No. 4909 of 2012. The appellant has filed this application for permission to bring on record the lease deed executed in favour of the respondent No.5 by one Devendra Roy, the lessor in respect of the land bearing Khata No. 402, Plot No. 2981, District Darbhanga, ad-measuring 17.45 decimals.

¶24

Leave is granted.

¶25

Copy of the aforesaid lease deed is taken on record. Interlocutory Application stands disposed of. Re. Letters Patent Appeal No. 771 of 2012.

¶26

Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 2^nd March 2012 passed by the learned single Judge in C.W.J.C No. 15804 of 2011, the writ petitioner has preferred this Appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent.

¶27

The matter at dispute is the dealership of retail outlet for petroleum products given by the respondent-Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Corporation’) to the respondent no. 5 at a location on Benipur- Darbhanga Road, District-Darbhanga. Pursuant to the public notice given by the Corporation, the petitioner had applied for such dealership. However, on evaluation of the credentials on parameters mentioned in the brochure, the respondent no. 5 stood first. The dealership was, therefore, allotted to the respondent no. 5.

¶28

Feeling aggrieved, the appellant approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution in above C.W.J.C No. 15804 of 2011.

¶29

According to the appellant he was given ‘0’ marks out of

¶30

Patna High Court LPA No.771 of 2012 (5) dt.30-08-2012

¶31

3 / 5

¶32

maximum 4 marks available under the head ‘fixed and movable assets’. Although the appellant had submitted papers related to his title over the land in question, he was awarded ‘0’ marks under the head ‘fixed and movable assets’, pushing the appellant down to the second position. Had the appellant earned the four marks under ‘fixed and moveable assets’, the appellant would have won the dealership of retail outlet of petroleum. The appellant also challenged the credibility of the respondent No. 5. According to the appellant, the documents produced by the respondent No. 5 in support of his right, title and possession over the land in question were doubtful. The said documents could not have been considered by the Corporation.

¶33

The petition was contested by the Corporation. According to the Corporation, the appellant had not submitted title paper along with his application. In absence of any document, the appellant had rightly not been awarded any mark under the head ‘fixed and movable assets’. The Corporation also relied upon a report in respect of the right, title and possession by the respondent No. 5 in respect of the land in question. The said report suggests that the land in question was taken by the respondent No. 5 on lease. The lessor had a clear right, title and possession over the land in question. In view of the facts brought on the record of the petition, the learned single Judge has dismissed the writ petition. Therefore, this Appeal .

¶34

Learned Additional Advocate General Mr. Lalit Kishore has appeared for the appellant. He has relied upon the additional material brought on record. He has submitted that the respondent no. 5 has produced three different lease deeds in respect of the same land. In a village, it is not possible that three different

¶35

Patna High Court LPA No.771 of 2012 (5) dt.30-08-2012

¶36

4 / 5

¶37

persons are owners of one piece of land. The lease hold right and possession claimed by the respondent No. 5 on the land in question are, therefore, doubtful.

¶38

Mr. Lalit Kishore has also submitted that the fact that the appellant had been called for interview itself suggests that the application made by the appellant was complete in all respects. Had the appellant not submitted the relevant documents in support of his right, title and possession over the land in question, his application would have been rejected outright. In the submission of Mr. Lalit Kishore an inference should be drawn in favour of the appellant that he had submitted all relevant materials along with his application.

¶39

We are unable to agree with Mr. Lalit Kishore. The question whether the respondent no. 5 has a valid right, title and possession over the land in question is a matter between the respondent no. 5 and the Corporation. As has been brought on record, the Corporation did make enquiry about the genuineness of the lease hold right claimed by the respondent no. 5 on the land in question. After due enquiry, having been satisfied that the respondent no. 5 did have a genuine lease hold right and possession of land in question, the respondent no. 5 has been awarded dealership of the retail outlet of petroleum. The Corporation having satisfied itself of the genuineness of the claim made by the respondent no. 5, in absence of any material on the record, the Court has no reason not to believe the subjective satisfaction recorded by the Corporation. This Court exercising the power of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution shall not interfere with the same.

¶40

As to the marks allotted to the appellant under the ‘fixed

¶41

Patna High Court LPA No.771 of 2012 (5) dt.30-08-2012

¶42

5 / 5

¶43

and movable assets’, it is a matter of subjective satisfaction of the Corporation. If the Corporation asserts that no material was submitted by the appellant, the same can not be disbelieved on mere inference in favour of the appellant. This Court in exercise of power of judicial review will not sit in appeal over the marks allotted by the Corporation under various heads including ‘fixed and movable assets’. It is not in dispute that the respondent no. 5 indeed earned more marks on the parameters fixed by the Corporation. The dealership of the retail outlet of petroleum awarded to the respondent no. 5 does not warrant interference.

¶44

For the aforesaid reason, Appeal is dismissed in limine . Interlocutory Application stands disposed of.

¶45

(R.M. Doshit, CJ)

¶46

Prakash/-

¶47

(Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J)

Rajeev Kumar Thakur v. the Union of India and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajeev Kumar Thakur v. the Union of India and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The State of Bihar and Ors. Vs Dukhi Gaira

Smt.Manisha Verma @ Manisha Ku Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

M/S Abb Ltd. Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

M/S Shakti Tubes Ltd.and Anr. Vs State of Bihar and Ors.

Rajendra Agriculture Universit Vs Dr.Nawal Kishore Choudhary and O

Rajendra Agriculture Universit Vs Dr.Brij Bihari Singh and Ors.