Petitioner challenging refusal of LPG dealership letter of intent due to alleged incorrect application information. Court found petitioner satisfied title requirements and remedy of defect precluded refusal.
Petitioner to be issued a letter of intent; impugned communication set aside.
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
C.W.P.No.21838 of 2010
Date of decision : 10.5.2012
Jagat Singh
....Petitioner
Versus
M/s Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. & anr.
...Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER
Present : Mr.Girish Agnihotri, Sr. Advocate with
Ms.B.Jeet Sheoran, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr.Ashish Kapoor, Advocate for the respondents.
MAHESH GROVER, J.
The petitioner has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court by stating that he had applied pursuant to an advertisement issued by the respondents for grant of retail outlet for LPG dealership. The petitioner was declared successful by obtaining 96.50 marks out of 100 and was placed at Sr.No.1 of the select list.
As per the procedure, the information given by the petitioner was duly verified and was found to be correct. In the concluding paragraph of the field inspection carried out it was stated by the respondents : “The information given in the application has been verified and found correct. Recommended for issuing letter of Intent (LOI). Yes, LOI can be issued.” Annexure P-4 is the field investigation report and the relevant clause of the same is also
C.W.P.No.21838 of 2010 -2-
extracted herebelow considering the fact that the entire controversy centers around the petitioner's having furnished the information about the lease deed which has subsequently now been questioned by the respondents to be incorrect as the same was not supported by a no objection certificate by three other co-owners :-
The information/statements made in application by Mr.
Jagat Singh s/o Sh.Jorawar Singh against each item has been
verified as under :-
Ite Particulars Supporting Documents Remarks
m verified documents provided by
No. to be the applicant
verified Yes/No.
13A2 Physically verify Registered Registered 15 yrs a) Certified copy of lease deed Page
the land for Sale lease agreement obtained from Tehsil office. 43-
godown/godown Deed/Mutatio no.3719 dated Lease deed is found to be 51
as mentioned in n gift/lease 6.12.2007 between matching with documents
the application. (15 yrs candidate Sh.Jagat submitted with the application
State the minimum) Singh s/o and shows candidate Sh.Jagat
dimension of plot agreement and Sh.Jorawar Singh Singh as lessee of said land
and confirm the government and Sh.Jorawar for a period of 15 years. 2)
general record etc. Singh s/o Land for godown investigated
suitability of site Date of Lt.Sh.Ghanshyam. and found to be suitable for
for LPG agreement.mu LPG Godown. 3) The land
Distributorship. tation has to offered has been cordoned
be before or with boundary wall on two
on the date of sides.
application.
The petitioner was afforded an opportunity by seeking explanation on 22.7.2010 asking him to explain that his experience for the period 2005-2006 was not based on documents; that the land for godown has three owners while the lease document is signed by one, namely, Jorawar Singh; that the petitioner had mentioned in his application details of the bank account the number of which was not tallying with the record of the bank.
The petitioner duly furnished an affidavit explaining all the three queries that were raised in the aforesaid letter. A no objection certificate from the other co-owners, namely, Khacheru and Jai Kishan was duly furnished by the petitioner. However, the
C.W.P.No.21838 of 2010 -3-
respondents repudiated the claim of the petitioner on 18.11.2010 by stating that he had provided wrong information at the time of making the application.
It is with this grievance that the petitioner has approached this Court.
While making his submissions learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to Clause 14.2 of the Brochure of March 2010 on Selection of INDANE (LPG) Distributors, extracted hereinbelow, to state that one of the requirements was that the petitioner should be having a clear title – registered sales,lease,gift deed, mutation, etc. of the suitable land/shop for showroom. There were options in this clause where a person not having a clear title – lease in his favour could even give a firm offer, agreement to purchase suitable land for shop for showroom or possibility of his arranging the same.
“ 14.2 Allocation of marks on various parameters based on the information/statement given in the application
| Parameter | Sub Head | Description | Max Mar ks |
Evaluation | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Capability to provide Infrastructu |
Suitable land for LPG |
Owns @ - Having clear title -Registered Sales/Lease/Gift Deed, Mutation etc. on the suitable |
25 | Based on information/statement the application |
the given in |
| re and facilities (as on the date of application) |
storage godown/go down |
land/godown OR Firm offer @ @ -Having agreement to purchase/lease suitable land/godown |
18 10 |
Based on information/statement the application Based on |
the given in the |
| for both individuals d |
OR Can arrange | information/statement of the application |
given in | ||
| an non- individuals |
Suitable land/shop for |
Owns @ -Having clear title – Registered Sales/Lease/Gift Deed, Mutation etc. of the suitable |
10 | Based on information/statement the application |
the given in |
| showroom | land/shop for showroom OR Firm offer @@ - Having agreement to purchase suitable land/shop for showroom OR Can arrange Sub total max marks |
7 5 35 |
Based on information/statement the application Based on information/statement the application |
the given in the given in |
On the basis of this, the contention of learned counsel for
C.W.P.No.21838 of 2010 -4-
the petitioner is that he was having a clear lease deed in his favour which was one of the requirements and he duly satisfied the same and, therefore, there was no question of furnishing information of other co-owners and in any case when confronted with explanation he has duly removed that objection. There has been no change in the lease deed and the only impediment of having no objection from other coowners has also been removed and thus there was no occasion with the respondents to deny him the letter of intent on the ground that he had concealed the material facts especially when on field inspection each and every information given by the petitioner had been found to be correct.
Learned counsel for the respondents has sought to justify the action against the petitioner by saying that it was validly taken on the ground that the petitioner had failed to furnish the correct information and as per the requirement in the advertisement information not supplied correctly would disentitle an incumbent from consideration.
I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have considered the material on record.
At the outset, it may be noticed that the entire controversy has been centered on the petitioner's not having furnished the material particulars regarding the lease deed in his favour by supportive no objection certificates from the other co-owners. Both the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents have confined themselves to this issue and on appraisal of which I
C.W.P.No.21838 of 2010 -5-
find that the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners merits acceptance for the simple reason that clause 14.2 of the Brochure contemplates that a person who is desirous of a retail dealership can possibly have a registered sale deed, a lease deed or a gift deed or even an offer or the capacity to arrange. The petitioner had clearly mentioned that he was having a registered lease deed in his favour of the land upon which he had erected a boundary wall as well in order to enable him to set up a godown in the eventuality of the dealership being granted to him. This fact was duly verified by the authority competent to verify such facts as were detailed in the application and upon such verification it was clearly given out that the petitioner had given correct information and the letter of intent could be issued.
After this needful had been done, there possibly was no occasion for the respondents to sit over the matter. However, learned counsel for the respondents has stated that there is an internal mechanism for verification to the fact which is not evident from the reply or the material placed on record. In any eventuality, assuming that such a verification was permissible the petitioner was required to give an explanation vide Annexure P-6 to which he satisfactorily responded by removing whatever little objection of having a no objection from the other co-owners was concerned.
The petitioner has been alleged to have given a false information and it has been made the basis for refusing the issuance of letter of intent to him. This, however, does not seem to be correct
C.W.P.No.21838 of 2010 -6-
as there is no variation in the lease deed which was a duly registered lease deed in favour of the petitioner and the only apprehension of the petitioner regarding the other co-owners in connivance seem to have been allayed by the consequent reply filed by the petitioner. This per se cannot be taken to be a concealment of fact and at best it can be termed to be an irregularity even if the best case of the respondents is accepted. Upon removal of such irregularity there would be no ground available to the respondents to refuse the issuance of letter of intent on the ground of concealment of fact or furnishing incorrect information.
For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is accepted, the impugned communication Annexure P-8 is set aside and the respondents are directed to issue a letter of intent in favour of the petitioner.
10.5.2012 (MAHESH GROVER) JUDGE
dss
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a petitioner who provides a registered lease deed and subsequent no objection certificates from co-owners satisfies the requirement of furnishing correct information regarding title.
Whether an irregularity in the initial application amounts to concealment of facts when remedied before the final decision.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Jagat Singh
M/s Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.
Mahesh Grover
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
