The Patna High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the allotment of a retail outlet dealership by Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited to Respondent No. 5, noting the petitioner failed to challenge the letter of intent and appointment which created legal rights.
The writ petition was dismissed with no order as to costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.15964 of 2010
=========================================================== Ajay Kumar S/O Late Dharamdev Singh, R/O Badauni Vatika, Kamruddinganj (Bharavpar), P.S.- Laheri, Distt.- Nalanda .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited having its Registered Office At 17, Jamshedji Tata Road, Mumbai through its Regional Manager 2. Deputy General Manager, East Central Zone, Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited, Lucknow 3. Senior Regional Manager-Retail Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited, Lok Nayak Jai Prakash Bhawan, 6th Floor, Dak Bunglow Crossing, Patna 4. Regional Manager, Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited, Lok Nayak Jai Prakash Bhawan, 6th Floor, Dak Bunglow Crossing, Patna 5. Ram Shankar Sharma S/O Abhiram Sharma R/O Vill.- Jaru, P.S.- Hulasganj, Distt.- Jahanabad
.... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Utsav Kumar Mr. Apurva Kumar For the Respondent No.1 to 4 : Mr. Rajeev Prakash For the Respondent No.5 : Mr. Sunil Kumar
===========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA PRASAD VERMA ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 07-04-2015
Heard the parties.
The matter at issue is the allotment of retail outlet dealership by the Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited at location Hulasganj in the district of Jehanabad on the basis of advertisement dated 20th June, 2009.
The petitioner has filed the present writ petition assailing the validity and correctness of order dated 23.04.2010 (Annexure-7) passed by the respondent no.2, whereby the objection filed by the petitioner regarding empanelment of the respondent no. 5 as a first candidate for allotment of retail outlet dealership in question has been rejected.
The present writ petition was filed on 22.09.2010 before
Patna High Court CWJC No.15964 of 2010 dt.07-04-2015
2/2
this Court and prior to that the letter of intent was issued in favour of the respondent no. 5, which has been brought on record as AnnexureA to the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent no.5. The respondent no.5 was appointed as dealer by letter dated 31st August, 2010 (Annexure-R/1 to the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent no. 1 to 4). It is also not in dispute that prior to that No Objection Certificate was issued by the District Magistrate, Jehanabad on 12.08.2010 and thereafter retail outlet dealership was commissioned and it is functional for almost last five years. Admittedly, prior to filing of the present writ petition on 22.09.2010, letter of intent as also letter of appointment was issued in favour of the respondent no. 5 creating a legal right in his favour, but for the reasons best known to the petitioner these orders/ decisions have not been challenged by him in the present proceeding. It is well known that commissioning of retail outlet dealership involves a commercial interest of the parties as also the respondent Corporation. The respondent no. 5 has invested huge money for commissioning of retail outlet dealership. The petitioner has chosen not to challenge the subsequent decision of the respondent Corporation regarding issuance of letter of intent as also the letter of appointment. This matter was heard earlier on 27.09.2010, but the actions of the respondents were not stayed.
In above view of the matter, this Court is not inclined to accede to the prayer made on behalf of the petitioner in the present writ petition. Consequently, the writ petition has to fail and is, accordingly, dismissed, but there shall be no order as to costs.
(Birendra Prasad Verma, J)
BTiwary/U
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere with the retail outlet dealership allotment decision made by Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited.
Whether the objection filed by the petitioner regarding the empanelment of Ram Shankar Sharma as first candidate should be quashed.
Ajay Kumar
Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited
Ram Shankar Sharma
BIRENDRA PRASAD VERMA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
