Dismissed

Amit Kumar v. Union of India and Ors.

Patna HC13 Sept 2012CWJC/5828/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner challenged the cancellation of his Letter of Intent for a retail outlet due to failure to produce title documents. The Court dismissed the writ, holding that the Corporation had the prerogative to select plots and was right to cancel approval for non-compliance.

What did the court decide?

Writ application dismissed due to delay and failure to comply with document submission requirements.

Amit Kumar Vs Union of India and Ors. — Writ and Judicial Review | Patna HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.5828 of 2006

¶2

====================================================== Amit Kumar, Son of Shri Mahesh Chandra Singh, Resident of Village Narbipur, P.S. Narhi Chandi, P.S. Chandi, District Bhojpur .... .... Petitioner Versus 1. Union of India, Ministry of Petroleum, Government of India through Secretary. 2. M/s Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd., Prince Anwar Shah Road, Golf Green, Kolkata-700 095 through its General Manager (Retail). 3. General Manager (Retail), Anwar Shah Road, Golf Green, Kolkata - 700 095. 4. Shri S. N.Singh, Son of name not known to the petitioner, Territory Manager, Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. Sipara, District Patna. .... .... Respondents ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner : Mr. Manik Vedsen Mr. Subhash Chandra Bose, Advocates For the Corporation : Mr. Sanjay Singh, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANANDAN SINGH ORAL ORDER 15 13-09-2012 Admittedly, Letter of Intent was issued to the petitioner through letter dated 14^th September, 2005, as contained in Annexure-2. Specific plot number and khata number was mentioned in the Letter of Intent, in respect of which document of ownership had to be arranged by petitioner within two months. Admittedly also, petitioner did not arrange it in time and filed some representation before the Corporation. The Corporation considered the same and replied him through letter dated 27^th of January, 2006, vide Annexure-6, in which it was stated that he had failed to produce the document in respect of title of land by purchase or obtaining the plot on lease through a

¶3

Patna High Court CWJC No.5828 of 2006 (15) dt.13-09-2012

¶4

2 / 3

¶5

valid registered deed of agreement. Ten days time was allowed to the petitioner by letter to the reply failing which Corporation was free to take appropriate action. Admittedly, even after ten days or till this date he has not got lease deed registered in his name from the owner of the plot selected by the Corporation.

¶6

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that firstly petitioner had offered two plots and both of them had been approved by the Corporation and, therefore, the Corporation ought to have given him opportunity to produce a registered lease deed in respect of the other plot. Secondly, petitioner was only waiting for ‘no objection certificate’ from the Government authorities to get the lease deed registered in his favour. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that requirement of obtaining a registered lease deed in respect of the plots selected within two months from the date of issuance of LOI was not mandatory and time should have been allowed to produce the same later on also.

¶7

This Court could appreciate this submission only if soon after he received the said letter dated 27.01.2006, he would have got lease deed registered in his favour and then would have approached the Corporation to accept it. This he never did. Learned counsel for the Corporation submits that now in 2012

¶8

Patna High Court CWJC No.5828 of 2006 (15) dt.13-09-2012

¶9

3 / 3

¶10

site has been re-advertised.

¶11

In the circumstances, this Court does not find that in this case any interference is called for by this Court on account of delay as well as on its merits. It is obvious that selection of a plot for setting up a Retail Outlet, out of several plots offered by an applicant, is the prerogative of the Corporation and the applicant cannot get it as a matter of right or compel the Corporation to accept any particular plot offered by him. If the applicant does not produce the required valid papers to establish his ownership by transfer or through a lease deed of the selected plot, the Corporation has every right to cancel LOI and take further steps in the matter, as may be required.

¶12

This writ application is, accordingly, dismissed.

¶13

B.T/-

¶14

(Jayanandan Singh, J)

Amit Kumar v. Union of India and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amit Kumar v. 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bimal Kumar Vs State of Bihar and Ors.

Kiran Kumari Vs The Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. and Ors.

Ghanshyam Vyas Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

Manoj Kumar Singh Vs Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.andOR

Manoj Kumar Singh Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

Nand Kishore Singh Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.