Petitioner challenged the cancellation of a retail outlet location by Indian Oil Corporation alleging procedural impropriety. The Court held that without an agreement, no vested right existed and the location change was not mala fide.
null
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.23320 of 2019
======================================================
Kavita Kumari, wife of Manoj Prasad Singh, resident of village and PostGopalbad, P.S.- Sarmera, Distt.- Nalanda.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
... ... Respondent/s
====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Adv. Mr. Amresh Kumar, Adv. For the Respondent/s (IOC) : Mr. Ankit Katriar, Adv. ======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 26-11-2019
Heard Mr. Sanjay Kumar, learned Advocate for
the petitioner and Mr. Ankit Katriar, learned Advocate for the respondent/Indian Oil Corporation (in short the Corporation).
Patna High Court CWJC No.23320 of 2019 dt.26-11-2019 2/6
communication made to her vide letters dated 06.09.2019 and 09.09.2019, contained in Annexure - 8 and 8/1 to this writ petition respectively, issued by the Chief Divisional Retail Sales Manager, Patna Divisional Office, Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., intimating her that the location for the retail outlet which was advertised was not found to be existing and, therefore, the location was being cancelled with the approval of the competent authority. While communicating this fact, the petitioner was made known that the cancellation of location was based on technical grounds and no fault was attributable to the petitioner and, therefore, the amount of Rs. 1,000/- which she had deposited as fee was also being returned to her.
challenged the aforesaid decision of the
respondent/Corporation on two grounds. The first ground raised by the petitioner is that in the first instance, the candidature of one Anil Kumar in the OBC category was found to be acceptable and aforesaid Anil Kumar submitted
the documents before the Land Evaluation Committee for
Patna High Court CWJC No.23320 of 2019 dt.26-11-2019 3/6
obtaining “No Objection Certificate” with respect to the land over which the retail outlet/pump was to be put up. On enquiry, it was found that the documents of the land reflected incorrect numbers and, therefore, the candidature of aforesaid Anil Kumar was rejected.
petitioner.
Patna High Court CWJC No.23320 of 2019 dt.26-11-2019 4/6
advertisement and it would also be permissible for the company to extend the date for opening of such outlets. Thus, it has been submitted that if once an advertisement is issued with respect to opening of a retail outlet with specification of such outlet to be within 1 km. distance of the newly constructed middle school, it was not open for the respondent/Corporation to have changed the location on the specious plea that no such school exists.
noted above, Mr. Kumar submits that the respondent/Corporation does not have the authority to change the location and the powers extend only to cancelling or recalling or amending the advertisement.
respondent/Corporation, has submitted that on determining the factual aspects of the matter, the Corporation took a decision of changing the location of the retail outlet. Though the letter communicating the petitioner about cancellation of the location of the outlet mentions the reason that there is no school existing there which was taken as a milestone for
Patna High Court CWJC No.23320 of 2019 dt.26-11-2019 5/6
selecting the outlet, but the fact of the matter is that by the aforesaid decision, the Corporation has chosen to amend the advertisement. The petitioner, as a selected candidate, cannot be permitted to stake her claim as if she has a vested right for being selected as an allottee/concessionaire.
Patna High Court CWJC No.23320 of 2019 dt.26-11-2019 6/6
does not have a vested right of being chosen as a concessionaire and the contractual agreement not having been entered into with the petitioner, the claim of the petitioner to open a retail outlet at a place which was earlier designated in the advertisement cannot be given effect to by an order of the Court.
(Ashutosh Kumar, J)
Praveen-II/-
| AFR/NAFR | NAFR |
|---|---|
| CAV DATE | N/A |
| Uploading Date | 29.11.2019 |
| Transmission Date | N/A |
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Corporation could change the location of the retail outlet after specifying it in the advertisement without entering into an agreement.
Whether the petitioner had a vested right to the selected location in the absence of a contractual agreement.
Kavita Kumari
The Union of India through the Secretary, Petroleum Ministry
The General Manager, Indian Oil Corporation
Ashutosh Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
