Petitioner challenged allotment of LPG distributorship to respondent No. 4 alleging incorrect assessment of capability marks regarding land ownership. Court declined to act as appellate authority over the decision-making process.
Petition dismissed; no interference in the administrative allotment decision.
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 PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Civil Writ Petition No. 11210 of 2010 Date of decision: 03.05.2011
Mandeep Singh
...Petitioner
Versus
Indian Oil Corporation Limited etc.
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH
Present: Mr. Arun Singal, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. Ashish Kapoor, Advocate for respondents No. 1 to 3.
Mr. R.K. Sharma, Advocate for respondent No. 4.
RANJIT SINGH J.
The petitioner has filed this writ petition to challenge the allotment of LPG Distributorship in favour of respondent No. 4.
Respondents/Indian Oil Corporation Limited had issued advertisement on 18.09.2006 inviting application for allotment of LPG distributorship for State of Punjab. The petitioner and respondent No. 4 submitted their respective applications for allotment of distributorship to Khanauri District Sangrur. The petitioner was called for interview. The result was declared on 18.07.2009. The LPG distributorship has been allotted in favour of respondent No. 4. The petitioner has challenged the allotment made in favour of respondent No. 4 on the ground that he has been wrongly assessed in some of the criteria as laid down. The grievance of the petitioner is that respondent No. 4 was awarded total 35 marks in the criteria of capability to provide land and infrastructure facilities. In the criteria, 25 marks were to be reserved for assessment for the purpose of
Civil Writ Petition No. 11210 of 2010
-2-
godown whereas 10 marks out of 35 were meant for offering site for showroom.
The petitioner would refer to the criteria formulated in this regard to say that the deed in favour of the respondent was 01.02.2010 but the petitioner has been awarded 25 marks out of 25 maximum marks though he was not the owner of the land. 25 marks could only be allowed to a person, who was owner of the land. As per the petitioner, the respondents could have been awarded only 18 marks.
In the reply filed, the respondent/Corporation would disclose that the land is owned by the wife of the petitioner, which would fall within the definition of family. The wife had given No Objection Certificate in favour of the husband petitioner that she would provide this land for godown purposes in case the petitioner was selected for allotment. The land owned by the wife, as per the criteria formulated, is required to be considered as land owned by the petitioner himself. Respondent No. 4,thus, was rightly awarded 25 marks under this Head.
It is for the respondent/Corporation to consider how assessment for experience is to be done and how marks are to be awarded. This Court while exercising the writ jurisdiction can not sit as an appellate Court over the decision. Courts can only examine the decision making process and can not interfere in the decision as such. This view has been reiterated in large number of cases by this Court. In this regard, reference can be made to Civil Writ Petition
Civil Writ Petition No. 11210 of 2010
-3-
No. 2096 of 2009 (Bharat Gupta versus Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. Chandigarh and another) decided on 22.03.2011 . I am, therefore, not inclined to interfere in exercise of writ jurisdiction while exercising the power of judicial review.
The writ petition is dismissed.
May 03, 2011 (RANJIT SINGH ) rts JUDGE
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court can interfere with the allotment of LPG distributorship on grounds of assessment error in capability criteria.
Whether lack of land ownership by petitioner warrants refusal of marks considering wife's land via No Objection Certificate.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Bharat Gupta versus Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.Referred¶21
Civil Writ Petition No. 2096 of 2009 (Bharat Gupta versus Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. Chandigarh and another)
Mandeep Singh
Indian Oil Corporation Limited
Respondent No. 4
Ranjit Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
