Allowed

Savitri Devi v. Indian Oil Corporation & Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC25 Sept 2013CWP/10901/1993

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment concerns a writ petition challenging the allotment of an oil retail dealership under a Scheduled Caste quota. The High Court held that the Selection Board violated eligibility criteria regarding residency and family income, arbitrarily ignoring valid representations against the successful candidate.

What did the court decide?

The allotment in favor of respondent no. 3 was quashed, and a writ of mandamus was issued directing the Corporation to allot the retail outlet to the petitioner within two months.

Savitri Devi Vs Indian Oil Corporati… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Punjab & Haryana HC (2013)

¶1

CWP No. 10901 of 1993

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

CWP No. 10901 of 1993 Date of Decision:- September 25, 2013

¶5

Smt. Savitri Devi

¶6

..............PETITIONER(S)

¶7

vs.

¶8

Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. and others ...........RESPONDENT(S)

¶9

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S. SANDHAWALIA

¶10

Present:Mr. Amit Jain, Advocate, for the petitioner.

¶11

Mr. M.S. Rana, Advocate, for Mr. Ashish Kapoor, Advocate, for respondents no. 1 and 2.

¶12

Mr. M.S. Bedi, Advocate, for respondent no. 3.

¶13

G.S. SANDHAWALIA, J. (Oral)

¶14

The present writ petition has been filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the award of retail outlet passed in favour of respondent no. 3 vide letter dated 03.08.1993 (Annexure P-12) at Tigaon, District Faridabad by the Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. under the Scheduled Caste category (Marketing Plan 1987-88). Further prayer has also been made for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent-authorities to issue Letter of Intent for the dealership of the retail outlet of the High Speed Diesel to the petitioner on account of being at Sr. No. 2 of the merit list.

¶15

The case of the petitioner is that the Corporation-respondent

¶16

Gupta Shivani 2013.10.04 14:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh

¶17

CWP No. 10901 of 1993

¶18

¶19

no. 1, vide advertisement dated 10.05.1989 (Annexure P-1), invited applications for the dealership of retail outlet of High Speed Diesel from amongst the candidates belonging to the Scheduled Caste at Tigaon, District Faridabad. As per the eligibility criteria, under clause 2, applicant should be an Indian National and not less than 21 years of age and not more than 50 years of age on the date of application and his minimum qualification was Matric or recognized equivalent. As per clause 2(d), residents of any one of Faridabad and Gurgaon Districts for a period not less than five years immediately preceding the date of application were eligible and other things being equal, preference was to be given to the candidates belonging to the District for which dealership was advertised. Similarly, vide clause 2(e), family income was not to be more than 50,000/- for last financial year apart from the fact that the person should not have a dealership/distributorship of any oil company and should not have close relative as a dealer/distributor of any oil company. The petitioner, being eligible, applied on 30.06.1989 and was called for an interview and submitted the necessary documents showing that her husband's annual income was less than 50,000/- before the Board and appeared several times.

¶20

During appearance before the Board, it transpired that respondent no. 3 was also being considered for the said dealership, though she was ineligible. Accordingly, the petitioner made a representation that respondent no. 3-Smt. Shakuntala Devi's husband was an Inspector in the Haryana Police and a resident of Gurgaon having basic pay of 2,000/- and a monthly salary of approximately 3,900/- and, therefore, his annual Gupta Shivaniemoluments were to the tune of `46,800/-. The Oil Selection Board of the 2013.10.04 14:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh

¶21

CWP No. 10901 of 1993

¶22

¶23

Corporation was also informed that the family of respondent no. 3 had agricultural land measuring 51 kanals 9 marlas purchased on 19.09.1985 for a sum of 29,500/- in the name of Raj Kumar s/o Bhim Singh, who was the real brother of Ram Phal, husband of respondent no. 3. The agricultural produce was for more than 80,000/- per annum and, therefore, the total annual family income was more than `1,46,000/-. Accordingly, request was made that allotment of retail outlet should not be made to respondent no. 3 and on account of the filing wrong affidavit, stern action be taken against her. Similar representation (Annexure P-8) was also made and an affidavit (Annexure P-9) dated 12.07.1993 giving the details was also filed. In spite of this, the Board prepared a merit list wherein, respondent no. 3 figured at Sr. No. 1 and the name of the petitioner figured at Sr. No. 2 and on the basis of which, the retail outlet was allotted to respondent no. 3. Resultantly, the present writ petition was filed before this Court.

¶24

While issuing notice of motion for 11.10.1993, operation of the allotment of the retail outlet on 03.08.1993 was stayed on 08.09.1993. Thereafter, the writ petition was admitted on 03.02.1994 and stay was to continue, however, respondent no. 1 was given liberty to make fresh selections. Counsel for the Board, however, intimates that no such fresh procedure was carried out. Accordingly, the writ petition is being decided on merits.

¶25

In the reply filed by the Oil Selection Board-respondent no. 2, it was stated that on the basis of the complaint against respondent no. 3, the same was looked into and the petitioner was given full opportunity to lead evidence and no truth was found in the complaint and the same was Gupta Shivanirejected. The plea taken was that disputed questions of fact were being 2013.10.04 14:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh

¶26

CWP No. 10901 of 1993

¶27

¶28

raised and the writ petition was not competent. The Oil Selection Board was headed by a retired Judge of the High Court and, therefore, the decision was final and this Court would not in its extra ordinary jurisdiction sit over the judgment of the Board as a Court of Appeal. Regarding the allegations made against respondent no. 3, it was averred that full opportunity was given to the petitioner and a final decision was taken in the meeting by the Board on 30.07.1993, on the basis of which, the retail outlet allotment was made and the petitioner had a right of consideration, which was duly considered and was not found suitable against respondent no. 3. The family income of respondent no. 3, as detailed in the application form and affidavit filed by her, was `40,000/- and that has been endorsed by the decision of the previous Board after considering the contentions raised and the evidence produced.

¶29

In the amended written statement filed on behalf of respondent no. 3, similar plea was taken that full opportunity had been granted to the petitioner to lead evidence and that she has suppressed the material facts from this Court at the time of filing of the writ petition in order to conceal her real annual income. Allegations were made that there was allotment of a house in Faridabad in the name of Sheela Devi w/o Bhoop Singh instead of Savitri Devi. Similarly, pleas were taken that her actual name was Sheela Devi. Reference was made to the voter list and telephone bills etc. It was further pleaded that the answering respondent has also made a complaint on 02.11.1993 to hold an inquiry against the petitioner that she had adopted fraudulent means to get the dealership of the outlet under the reserved quota by concealing her income and that complaint had been made against her for registration of criminal case for preparing false documents of domicile, Gupta Shivani 2013.10.04 14:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh

¶30

CWP No. 10901 of 1993

¶31

¶32

Scheduled Caste Certificate and Ration Card, which all pertain to the year 1993. Accordingly, it was pleaded that the writ petition is liable to be dismissed on account of concealment of material facts.

¶33

Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that as per the advertisement, preference had to be given to her and the Board wrongly issued the retail outlet allotment letter in favour of respondent no. 3. Reference was made to Clause 2(d) and (e) of the advertisement, which read as under:-

¶34

“2(d) Resident of any one of FARIDABAD & GURGAON Districts for a period not less than 5 years immediately preceding the date of application. However, other things being equal, preference will be given to candidates belonging to the District for which dealership is advertised.

¶35

e) Having family (as defined in the application form) income of not more than Rs.50,000/annual (last financial year).”

¶36

It was further submitted that in spite of the representations made before the allotment, the matter was never properly examined by the Board and the allotment letter was issued in favour of respondent no. 3.

¶37

On the other hand, counsel for the private respondent sought to justify allotment on the ground that the petitioner herself was ineligible and various complaints had been made and she had concealed material facts.

¶38

Perusal of the written statement filed by respondent no. 3 goes on to show that there is no denial to the fact that respondent no. 3 is not a resident of Faridabad District for which the dealership was advertised. As Gupta Shivani 2013.10.04 14:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh

¶39

CWP No. 10901 of 1993

¶40

¶41

per clause 2(d), if other things were equal, preference will be given to candidates belonging to the District for which dealership is advertised. Admittedly, as per application given, the petitioner's husband was drawing annual salary of 22,392/- (Annexure P-6) whereas respondent's No. 3 husband was drawing annual salary of 26,835/- (Annexure R-3/9) and thus both candidates were at almost equal pedestal.

¶42

Counsel for the petitioner, on the other hand, has been able to demonstrate successfully that a representation had been filed bringing to the notice of the Board that respondent no. 3 was a resident of Gurgaon and ineligible on account of the fact that her husband was employed as a police official and was drawing sum of 46,800/- per annum and was also having 51 kanals and 9 marlas of land and, therefore, her family income was more than 50,000/-.

¶43

In the written statement filed by the Board, the plea taken is that the affidavit filed by respondent no. 3 shows her annual family income as `40,000/-, which had been endorsed by the Board after considering the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner.

¶44

In the amended written statement filed by respondent no. 3, the plea taken is that the husband of respondent no. 3 was a Sub-Inspector and was drawing monthly salary of 2,259/- and salary statement issued by the Superintendent of Police, Gurgaon was attached as Annexure R-3/9 which was for a period April 1988 to March 1989, which is in contradiction to the fact that the Board has taken a plea that the annual income of respondent no. 3 is 40,000/-. There is no denying the fact that respondent no. 3 is a resident of Gurgaon and not of Faridabad regarding which also, there is no Gupta Shivani2013.10.04 14:38denial by the Board. Once petitioner and respondent no. 3 were eligible, I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh

¶45

CWP No. 10901 of 1993

¶46

¶47

preference was to be given to the candidates belonging to the District for which dealership was advertised as per Clause 2(d) since the family income of both the applicants was equal. The justification to award the retail outlet to respondent no. 3 in spite of representations being made on the ground of preference seems to be totally arbitrary. The submission that this Court cannot in its extra ordinary jurisdiction sit over the judgment of the Board as a Court of Appeal is without any basis. Once there is violation of the terms of the eligibility itself and preference had to be given to the resident of District Faridabad, this Court cannot sit as a silent spectator on the illegalities committed by the respondent-Board. A perusal of the order dated 30.07.1993 (Annexure P-12) would show that the list had already been prepared by the earlier Board and the same was released without taking into account the representations made by the petitioner. The said decision reads as under:-

¶48

“The previous Board empanoled the following

¶49

candidates in order of merit:-

¶50

However, this panel could not be released by the

¶51

previous Board. After the constitution of the present Board some complaints were received regarding the empanelment.

¶52

We have considered the matter and it is decided that this empanelment may be released in order of merit.

¶53

Gupta Shivani 2013.10.04 14:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh

¶54

CWP No. 10901 of 1993

¶55

¶56

S.L.C. (Haryana)-cum-Non-Member Secretary is advised to write to the concerned Oil Company for issuance of L.O.I. in favour of the candidate at Srl. 1 Smt. Shakutla Devi.”

¶57

The submissions made by counsel for respondent no. 3 that the petitioner herself was ineligible, is also without any basis. Admittedly, no such representation was made at the time when the matter was pending consideration. Now, once an illegal allotment came into the hands of respondent no. 3 and which is the subject matter of challenge, now mud is being thrown at the petitioner in an effort to discredit her eligibility. It is pertinent to mention that documents referred to above pertain to the year 1993 after filing a amended written statement. The outlet in question was advertised in the year 1989 and at that point of time, the Board had to see the eligibility of the petitioner. The subsequent acquisition of any property would not take away the right of eligible candidate at the time of the advertisement.

¶58

Accordingly, this Court is of the opinion that the allotment of the retail outlet in favour of respondent no. 3 vide letter dated 03.08.1993 cannot be justified. The Board never acted on the representations of the petitioner. Accordingly, the said allotment in favour of respondent no. 3 is quashed. The necessary consequences the petitioner being eligible being at Sr. No. 2 will naturally flow to her. The Corporation never acted on the interim order of this Court and never made efforts to allot a retail outlet afresh. Accordingly, a writ of mandamus is issued to the Corporation to proceed in favour of the petitioner in view of her being held eligible and placed at Sr. No. 2 in the merit list and issue the necessary allotment letter Gupta Shivani 2013.10.04 14:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh

¶59

CWP No. 10901 of 1993

¶60

¶61

within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order.

¶62

The writ petition is allowed in view of the above terms.

¶63

25.09.2013 (G.S. Sandhawalia) shivani Judge

¶64

Gupta Shivani 2013.10.04 14:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh

Savitri Devi v. Indian Oil Corporation & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Savitri Devi v. Indian Oil Corporation & 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

State of Punjab Vs Presiding Officer,Labour Court,Amritsar etc.

Anand Parkash Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Jaswant Singh Mor Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Ram Flour Mills through Its Managing Partner Cum Principal Employer Sh. Gian Chand Vs Employees State Insurancce Corp. through Its Regional Director Adn Anr.

Fci Ludhiana Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Fci Ludhiana Vs State of Punjab & Ors.