Dismissed

Vikram Singh Chundawat v. Senior Manager Hindutan Pet. and Ors.

Rajasthan HC9 Jan 2018CW/13000/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition challenging the selection list for a retail outlet dealership, the court upheld the High Court's dismissal of the challenge. The petitioner's land lease was deemed invalid as a long-term lease under the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, classifying it as a 'firm offer'; thus, the mark reduction and subsequent re-interview were valid.

What the court decided

AI extract

Vikram Singh Chundawat Vs Senior Manager… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Rajasthan HC (2018)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6929 / 2013

¶3

Vikram Singh Chundawat son of Shri Ishwar Singh Ji Chundawat aged about 48 years resident of Gamatvara, Tehsil Sagwada District Dungarpur, Rajasthan

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

Senior Manager,

¶7

Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. 17, Jamshedji Tata Road, Mumbai 400 020.

¶8

The Senior Regional Manager, Regional Retail Office (Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd.), 50, Saheli Nagar, New Polo Ground, Udaipur 313 001.

¶9

Bhim Singh Chouhan son of Shri Laxman Singh resident of village Varda, Tehsil Sagwada District Dungarpur.

¶10

----Respondent

¶11

Connected With

¶12

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13000 / 2012

¶13

Vikram Singh Chundawat son of Shri Ishwar Singh Ji Chundawat aged about 47 years resident of Gamatvara, Tehsil Sagwada District Dungarpur, Rajasthan

----Petitioner

Versus

1. Senior Manager,

Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. 17, Jamshedji Tata Road, Mumbai 400 020.

¶18

The Senior Retail Manager, Regional Retail Office (Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd.), 50, Saheli Nagar, New Polo Ground, Udaipur 313 001.

¶19

Bhim Singh Chouhan son of Shri Laxman Singh resident of village Varda, Tehsil Sagwada District Dungarpur.

¶20

----Respondent

¶21

For Petitioner(s) : Mr R.S.Chundawat For Respondent(s) : Mr Manoj Bhandari

¶22

(2 of 11)

¶23

[CW-6929/2013]

¶24

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI

¶25

Judgment / Order

¶26

09/01/2018

¶27

In both these writ petitions, the petitioner has questioned the action of the respondent-Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited (for short ‘the HPCL’ hereinafter) of appointing/selecting a dealer for the retail outlet of petroleum products at location “Within 2 Km from Varda Police Station on Varda-Sagwara Road, District Dungarpur” (for short ‘the location in question’ hereinafter).

¶28

Vide advertisement dated 19.09.2011, the HPCL invited applications from the eligible candidates for selection/appointment of dealers for the retail outlet of petroleum products at various locations including the location in question.

¶29

As per the facts, which are not in dispute, as many as five candidates were interviewed by the respondent – HPCL on 20.08.2012 for the location in question and a provisional select list was declared on 20.08.2012, wherein the petitioner and Bhim Singh (respondent No.3 in both the writ petitions) stood at serial No.1 and 2 respectively. As per the provisional select list, out of 100 marks, the petitioner had secured 84.81 marks, whereas the respondent No.3 had secured 81.73 marks.

¶30

Later on, the respondent-HPCL received a complaint in respect of the land offered by the petitioner for establishment of a retail outlet and after taking into consideration the various discrepancies in the status of land offered by the petitioner and

¶31

(3 of 11)

¶32

[CW-6929/2013]

¶33

particularly the fact that the lease-deeds of agriculture land offered by the petitioner are for a period of 30 years but as per Section 45 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955, the lease of agriculture land for more than 5 years is invalid, the respondentHPCL has concluded that the marks awarded to the petitioner under the head ‘land and infrastructure’ is liable to be reduced from 31.15 to 22.25 and as such the total marks awarded to the petitioner are changed from 84.81 to 75.91. Resultantly, the rank of the petitioner in the merit panel was changed from No.1 to No.2. Information whereof was communicated to the petitioner vide letter dated 22.11.2012.

¶34

Being aggrieved with this, the petitioner has preferred SBCWP No.13000/2012, wherein this Court issued notices on 11.12.2012 to the respondents, however, no interim order was granted. During the pendency of the said writ petition, the respondent-HPCL vide letter dated 15.12.2012 informed the petitioner that in view of change in empanelment, the Redressal Committee after going through the documents viz. complaint letter, policy guidelines along with copy of mark-sheet/TEC, investigation report etc. has advised to redo the dealer selection process for the location in question. Later on, pursuant to the same, the petitioner was called for interview before the selection committee on 12.06.2013 at 10:00 A.M. vide letter dated 28.05.2013 and being aggrieved with the same, the petitioner has preferred SBCWP NO.6929/2013. On 22.07.2013, while issuing notices of the said writ petition, this Court restrained the

¶35

(4 of 11)

¶36

[CW-6929/2013]

¶37

respondent-HPCL from making allotment of retail outlet dealership in question.

¶38

Now the core question involved in these writ petitions is whether the agriculture land offered by the petitioner for establishment of retail outlet is a land owned by the petitioner or the petitioner is having land on long lease (registered for maximum period of 30 years) or the petitioner has given a firm offer of land.

¶39

It is not in dispute that the Guidelines for selection of retail outlet dealers issued by the HPCL from September 2011 are applicable in the present controversy. Clause 12 of the said Guidelines regarding the availability of suitable land is reproduced hereunder:

¶40

“12. Availability of suitable land:

¶41

Availability of suitable land for setting up of retail outlets at the advertised location is the essence of the dealership. Wherever it has been indicated in the advertisement that land is also required at the advertised location, the applicants who readily have suitable site available for setting up of Retail Outlet or have a firm commitment from the land owner for purchase / lease of site, considering the location of the land from the point of view of suitability from technical and commercial angle and rates acceptable to HPCL, applicants willing to transfer the land on ownership / long term lease to HPCL are given marks under the head ‘Land and Infrastructure’ . The above is subject to considering the location of the land from the point of view of suitability from technical and commercial angle and rates acceptable to HPCL. However, the land and details offered along

¶42

(5 of 11)

¶43

[CW-6929/2013]

¶44

with the application alone will be considered for this purpose and the applicant will not be given the opportunity to offer any other land subsequently.

¶45

However, if an applicant, after selection, is unable to provide the land indicated in the application within a period of two months from the date of Letter of Intent (LOI), HPCL will have the right to cancel the allotment of dealership made to the applicant. The suitability of the Land offered by the applicant will be decided by HPCL. However, there is no commitment from HPCL for taking the offered land from the applicant.

¶46

In case of lease, the same will be for a period of minimum 30 years. However, if need arises, some outlets can be developed by HPCL as dealer owned without taking the land on lease, if specified in the advertisement.

¶47

The land owned by the “family unit” will also be considered as belonging to the applicant subject to producing the consent letter from the concerned member of “family unit”. In case of married person/applicant the “family unit” consists of self, spouse and unmarried son(s) / unmarried daughter(s) and in case of unmarried person/ applicant the “family unit” consists of self, father, mother, unmarried brother(s) and unmarried sister(s).

¶48

Documents for Offered Land

¶49

The applicant(s) should furnish at least one of the following documents in support of ownership of land offered for Retail outlet:

¶50

i. Khsara/Khatauni or any equivalent revenue document or certificate from revenue official confirming status of ownership of the land

¶51

¶52

ii. Registered sale deed

(6 of 11)

[CW-6929/2013]

iii. Registered lease deed for a minimum period of 30 years.

¶57

¶58

iv. Any other type of ownership transfer deed/ document

¶59

¶60

v. Lease agreement or Firm allotment letter issued by Government/Semi Government bodies

¶61

Consent letter to Lessee by Lessor for sublease of offered land to HPCL to be submitted unless lease agreement specifies that no consent for sublease is required.

¶62

In addition to the above, following documents are also required, as applicable, for evaluation as “Own land/Firm offer” :

¶63

S.No.	Situation of	Share of	Documents required in	Evaluation
	ownership	applicant in land	addition to above
1	Self	Full	Nil	Owned
2	Self with members of family unit	Part	Consent letter from members of family unit	Owned
3	Self with other owner(s)	Part	Consent letter on stamp paper or an Affidavit or Power of Attorney from other owner(s)	Owned
4	Self and members of family unit with other owner(s)	Part	Consent letter from members of family unit and Consent letter on stamp paper or an Affidavit or Power of Attorney from other owner(s)	Owned
5	Only members of family unit	Nil	Consent letter from members of family unit	Owned
6	Members of	Nil	Consent letter from members	Owned
	family unit with		of family unit and Consent

¶64

(7 of 11)

¶65

[CW-6929/2013]

¶66

	other owner(s)		letter on stamp paper or an Affidavit or Power of Attorney from other owner(s)
7	Self with members of family unit	Part but area more than HPCL requirement	Consent letter from members of family unit not available	Firm offer
8	Self with other owner(s)	Part but area more than HPCL requirement	Consent letter from other owner(s) not available	Firm offer
9	Self and members of family unit with	Part but area more than HPCL	Consent letter from members of family unit and other	Firm offer
	other owner(s)	requirement	owner(s) not available
10	Other owner(s)	Nil	Agreement to purchase/Offer letter on stamp paper/Affidavit/Power of attorney	Firm offer
11	Land owned by Government/Semi -Government bodies	Nil	Letter from the Government/ Semi-Government bodies that land will be allotted in case dealership is awarded	Firm offer

¶67

In all cases, site map with dimensions indicating survey no., hissa no., name of the road (NH/SH/Other road), nearest KM Stone, total land area and offered land, as applicable in respect of the plot being offered for Retail Outlet are to be attached.”

¶68

Clause 16 of the above Guidelines contains norms for evaluating the candidates, and the relevant provision in respect of land and infrastructure is sub-clause (b), which is reproduced

(8 of 11)

[CW-6929/2013]

hereunder:

“ b) Allocation of marks on various parameters :

¶73

Parameter	Sub-heads	Description	Max Marks	Evaluation
Land and	Suitable	Having “own	35	Based on
infrastructure (Max. 35 marks) both for individual & non individual	land for retail outlet	land” or having land on long lease (registered) for a minimum period of 30 years and willing to give to HPCL on long term lease at rentals acceptable to HPCL		verification of the land titleship documents submitted by the applicant alongwith his application.
		Having “firm offer” of land and willing to give to	25
		HPCL on long term lease at rental acceptable to

¶74

As per the above provision of allocation of marks on various parameters, if a candidate, who is having own land or having land on long lease (registered) for a minimum period of 30 years, offers to give his/her land on long term lease to the HPCL, the marks will be awarded to him/her out of maximum 35 marks,

¶75

(9 of 11)

¶76

[CW-6929/2013]

¶77

however, if a candidate, who gives firm offer of land, the marks will be awarded to him/her out of maximum 25 marks.

¶78

It is to be noticed that in response to the letter dated 22.11.2012, whereby the marks of the petitioner for land and infrastructure were reduced from 31.15 to 22.25, the petitioner submitted a representation to the respondent – HPCL on 01.12.2012 (Annex-16), wherein he has specifically admitted that a valid lease for agriculture land by a Khatedar can be created only for five years as per Section 45 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act. However, he has submitted that the lessors of the lease deed have undertaken to get the land let out to the applicant converted from agriculture use to non-agriculture use and, therefore, he assured that the land use of the leased property shall be got converted from agriculture to non-agriculture. Para (D) of the representation of the petitioner dated 01.12.2012 is reproduced hereunder”

¶79

“(D) In reply to Ground (D) incorporated in para No.3 of your letter, it is submitted that it is correct that in view of Section 45 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955, a valid lease for agriculture land by a khatedar can be created only for five years but if the same is got converted into Abadi or commercial use, then, the restriction imposed by the above section ceases to operate. The lessors in para No.4 of their lease deed have under taken to get the land let out to the applicant converted from agriculture use to non agriculture use without any delay. The lessors accordingly are going to file application before the concerned authority fore conversion of the land use of the leased property, and by all means will get the land concerted within a few months. However, the lease is valid for a period of five years and I assure you Sir

¶80

(10 of 11)

¶81

CW-6929/2013]

¶82

that much before the expiry of that period, the land use of the leased property shall be got converted from agriculture to non agriculture.”

¶83

From the own admission of the petitioner, it is clear that the land offered by him for establishment of retail outlet on location in question is neither the land owned by him nor he was having land on long lease (registered) for a minimum period of 30 years and the land offered by the petitioner can only be termed as firm offer. As per the Guidelines of 2011, the maximum marks for firm offer is 25 and from this, it is clear that the award of 31.15 marks to the petitioner under the head ‘land and infrastructure’ earlier was not justified. The respondent-HPCL has treated the land offered by the petitioner as firm offer and thereafter awarded marks to the petitioner under the head ‘land and infrastructure’ out of maximum marks 25.

¶84

As stated earlier, when the petitioner himself has admitted that the land offered by him cannot be treated as the land owned by him or land leased on long lease registered for a maximum period of 30 years, it cannot be said that there is any illegality in the action of the respondent-HPCL to reduce the marks of the petitioner under the head ‘land and infrastructure’ from 31.15 to 22.25.

¶85

The further action of the respondent-HPCL to redo the interview may not cause any prejudice to the petitioner as he will get opportunity to appear in the interview.

¶86

(11 of 11)

¶87

CW-6929/2013]

¶88

In view of the above discussions, I do not find any merit in these writ petitions and the same are, therefore, dismissed.

¶89

There shall be no order as to costs.

¶90

m.asif/PS

¶91

(VIJAY BISHNOI)J.

Vikram Singh Chundawat v. Senior Manager Hindutan Pet. and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Vikram Singh Chundawat v. Senior Manager Hindutan Pet. and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nadeem Vs State

Apeshwar Credit Co-Op Soci. Ltd., Vs State and Ors.

Pradeep Jain Vs Stat E and Ors.

Smt. Rupa and Anr. Vs State and Ors.

Nancy Joshi and Anr. Vs State of Rajasthan and Ors.

Kasam Khan Vs State and Ors.