Dismissed

Swathi Baina v. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd.,(Hpc)

Telangana HC7 Jun 2023WP/18859/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the rejection of an application for a retail outlet dealership. The court held that the petitioner had misrepresented the plot dimensions in her initial application, making her ineligible to start the selection process, and found no illegality in the corporation's actions.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner's writ petition challenging the rejection of her dealership application was dismissed without costs.

Swathi Baina Vs Hindustan Petroleum Corporation… — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[^32s6 ]

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO: 18859 OF 2020

¶8

Between:

¶9

Swathi Baina, W/o Ramesh Baina, Aged 30 years, Occ. House wife, R/o. 2- 3411 , Dabba Village, lbrahimpatnam Mandal, Jagitial District.

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

Hindustan Petroleum Corporalion Ltd.,(HPC), A government of lndia Enterprise, Regd. Office . 17, Jamshedji Tata Road, Mumbai- 400020.

¶13

Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd., Mr.A.V.N.S.K. Lakshmana Rao Head of Regional Office, Warangal Retail Regional office, D.No. 24-7-29,2nd Floor, Fathima Complex, Fathimanagar, Kazipet, Warangal District.

¶14

...RESPONDENTS

¶15

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ or direction more preferably writ of MANDAMUS declaring the respondent No.2's letter dated 30.9.2O2O sent to the petitioner declaring the application No.^{'154710675771O3} as ineligible for RO Dealership for the location, and there is suppression of facts by me as illegal high handed and arbitrary and violative of Article^'14,16 and 19(1Xg) of the Constitution of lndia, as the same is passed without considering the material^papers submitted by the petitioner herein which is prejudicial to my lawful interest, duly setting aside the said impugned letter dated 30.9.2O2O, further direct the respondents to^grant Retail Outlet Dealership to the petitioner for the location at Vellulla village, by declaring her as successful candidate who has fulfill the' criteria^(v) Group^-1 as laid down by the respondent authorities in their advertisement and brochure dated 24.11.2018.

¶16

lA NO: 1 OF 2o2o

¶17

Petition und€) section 151 cPC prayrng that rn the <:r)r rrS noce s stated in the affidavit filc'd in s u6,port of the petition. the High cor rt rna,, I e t leasod to drrect the respondenl aLrth )n.ies not to appointlallot to any on: for flrr location at vellulla Village (on N4:rrn Rr ar1), Metpally [V]andal, Jagrtial Di-.,trir;t i sj RC) dezrlership by stalling all the funh ir proceedings in respect of thc rbove irppointmr:nt of Ro Dealership advertisr: n()nt in respect of the above locatr rn pe rclrrrg disposal of the writ petition.

¶18

lA NO: 2 OF 2020

¶19

Between:

¶20

Hindustan Petr lloum Corporation Ltd ,(HpC). A go,uernrn:rrt of lndia -^{Enterprise,Re: yd Office17, Jamshedji Tata Road,[\r]urr b, ri- 4OOOZO.} 2. Hindustan Pelr tlcum Corporation Ltd.,^'l,4r.A.V. N S.K. Lal sl mana Rao Head of Regional rJr ce. Warangal Retarl Regional offrce D ltro^{..:4-7_29,2nd} Floor, Fathima^(lomp e) , Fathimanagar, Kazipet, Warang :l Dist-ir:t.

¶21

...PETI'I'IONE R{;/RI:SPONDENTS

¶22

AND

¶23

Swathi Baina, Vro Ramesh Baina, Aged 30 years Ocr;. Flousre wife, Rt/o. 2_ 3411, Dabba Vi ar;e, lbrahimpatnam I,4andal,^jagitie I Distr r;:.

¶24

...RE SPON Dl: N-IPETIT|ONER

¶25

Petition undt.'r iection 151 cPC praying that in the cinrrn'rstances stated in the affidavit filed in ru rport of the petition, the High oourl riry le pleased to vacate the order of ! tatus quo Dt. 2111012020 in Wp rrlo^.1ggl: 9 of 2OZO in the interest of justice.

¶26

Counsel for the Petit orrer: SRI NIVARTHI MRUTHYANJAyA I;ASTRy Counsel for the Resp crrdents: SRI B.MAYUR REDDy

¶27

The Court made the I rllowing: ORDER

¶28

¶29

¶30

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.18859 OF 2O2O

¶31

ORDER

¶32

Flearcl learnr:d counst l ior thl: petitioncr and Sri IS.Mayur Reddy, Iearned Scnior Counscl appc:rrrng lor thc resporrdents.

¶33

This Writ Pctition is litcd questioning [he letter dateci 30.O9.2020, issucd b,1, respondcnt No.2 in rejecting the application No.15471tJ67577 lo:l sr-rbmrtted by the pet.itioner for allotment of RO l)calership in thc State of Telangana at Vellulla Village Mairr Road, N4ctparily,, Nland:,r1. Jagitial District.

¶34

The llcts ol the casc arc that the respondentCorporation issued Advertrsement o r-r 14. 12.2Ol8 calling for applications for allotment of retail outlet dealership at various places including ar. Vcllulla Vi!k.rgt, Metpally Mandal, Jagitial District. In response thcrcto, thc petitioner herein subrnitted application, dated 1O.O1.2019. In terms of the said advertisement, onc of thc rcquircrnr;nts is that the applicant should possess a plol havrnq fron rage ol 30 meters and depth of 30 meters in ordcr to bc eligil:)c to submil an application tbr' allotment of retail outlet. The petitioner herein v*,hile submitting application, dal-cd !0-O1.20 19. ha:; cal.cgoricall)' rncntioned Lhat shc is having plct il,itir s<:izc of :J0 meters x 30 metels. The

¶35

. i3

¶36

pcLiLroD( r- :li ir ts Lo irilr-r: olt(erinccl tl'rc s:tid pi rt ,Ir I ls( ,.rr](l,rr a rtgist( rlcl L rasc Dcccl rl:rtccl 07.01.2019. I3rr-itrt r-,1ron rhc particu irrlr L.r:nrshed br' lltc pctr[ioni:r ir.r tlc :;;:i, Lrpplicirtion, she \,;r:i al o''cd to parlicipate in thc rlr;ru l lf Lots .rLtd accorclr rql,, . Llc pctltior)c r-s itltltlicatrOrt rvir: prCli.. r r.r| 111 1|Lg clrarr I ol' lotl; arrd aftcr vcnl'ying the docuntcnrs srrL tiril tr'cl l^ the petir Loncr rl,. r-rg \t/ith her application, t h-- res ltorrricnt corp()rirtlo:r ..hrough its lclter dated 04.07.-2O 1(i, r :r1t rrr:rl []'re pctilion( r r., sllbmit Cerlzrin dor:untcnts Lnr lrrrl rq |r,i.l llcd clocLlnrr'nts I cr taining to thc land offerect.

¶37

\c:rording to learncd counsel lor tlre 1rr: itioncr'. the czrnrliclirtu-c ol' the petilioncr was (:olilirnre( i n I^,sltr' ,ras reqllirc(1 tt ;u bmit all thc documents for vuril'ir:r t rr-r rrnrl the petition(:r s; tl, mitted all the required dot unrr:r r,.., i.rcltrr ling Recl ification I)et:d dated 08.07.2019 lor vcrrfir: r I on lx t he respon(lcnt-l lorporation.'lhereafLcr, once ag.rin orr )6.r18.2(.r20, the respondr n s have addrcssed a letter rcquirin!1 [ire pctitioner to subrrit s: rnil rrrore documents and tl-re sa,d Cor r-^-nents \,ere submitlcd c' : )7.O8.2O'20 and.thc samc \'cl ir< k tr u:Lrdgr:rl by thc res pon dr nl -C.orpora tion.

¶38

rr::ording to learned counsel for tht: l)c iti,)ncr. in spitc o sul- r ltrng all thr: required docum,rnrs n:lulir-rg the

¶39

¶40

Rectification Decd, dated oa.o7-2o19, Lhe respondents rejectcd the candidature of the^pctitroner through the impugned letter dated O3.09.2020 on the ground ol rnsufficient land as on the date of submission of application

¶41

Learned counsel for the petitioner laid stress on the reason given by the respond en t-Corporation in the letter dated 30.O9.2O2O stating that thc,V have not received any documents within the time stipulated in thc letter dated 06.OA.2O2O. According to learned counscl for thc petitioncr, in response to the said letter dated 06.08.2020, thc petitioner has submitted required documcnts on 07 .O8.2020 under proper acknowledgment to respondenLCorporation. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted a represenLation dated 11.09.202O for restoration of her candidature in rcspect of retail outlet in question and the said request of thc petitioner was rejected by the respondent corporation through impugned letter dated 30.O9.2O2O. From the letter dated 3O.O9.2O2O, it is evident that the reason for rejection of application of the petitioner is, the petitioner not having sufficient land as on the date of submission of application i.e., on 1O.01.2O19.

¶42

[t is not in dispute that in terms of advertisement dated 14.12.2O18 issued by the respondent-corporation, in

¶43

()r11cr t( lrr' ,: i.e iblt: to subnrit an a1;plic:alion lor c,t.is rlr':-ati'rrr olIrt r'^,::rrrJi,lrt lLrc tlrc pctittoncr- slrould l)ors( sJ , 1-.1^{ri', irlt} nrcasur-r'n]a r- Ls ol 30 rlclcr-s X 30 nrete|s rs r r lrC rlat, Ol' sLtbnlisii()r) o trcr applir::ation. 1'he pc itionlr srrirnriuccl itl)lllicarr()r r⁽ n 1().O1.2019 bt' g1vn1g lneasLrrtrr€n i ril-rhe plol posscsscrJ l:. ircr :rs 3C nrcters X 3O metc'rs Llr.(le r r cqLsllit rl l-case []ccrl, 1:red 08.01.2O19. A perusal ol the sarrl li'i se ri :t'ri. (lalt:d ()8.O1 2019 clearly shou's that thc mr:asrLrcr l(l I of tho plot ptt:;st ;sr cl b", 11-ra pctiti()ner is only 26 Ir ctrr:-s ',^(r.l t-rtc l,. r's. l)llt nor- 3( |^- IeLers x 30 ftIclr]rs. Thc said m( asrlr," Li nts ol tlrc l)iot^{ci)vL'rr(bv theLe:rsc Deed, datcd [)8.0 ] ..1(t 19. :ir(} :ilLcred,'rc<:Li ied by entering into a Rectific:rtior.r lt< crl, rlrilcrl 08.07.201') arrd the said Rcctification Dc,'d^'ivrr: sLrbmrtrr:rl lrr:fore lhr: r :s pondent- corporation on 10.0i..2O L(l I,ronr tl'rr: vcry fa.'t ttr 1t lhc petitioncr got measuremcnt cI lll( plor rrr cluestion r;ol r':cr-ified b1' entering into Recti^'iczrLir n I)t cd ilsr:lf sl'rou's 'h:rl l 1( pe titioner does not possess tlre plor 'vitlt sizr 30 x 30 m:tc-. r1:, on the datc of submission of appti i- liorl I.e.. un lO.O1,20ll E)vcn from thc perusal o[ schedule' 1: o',i<l:d in tlrr: Lcase i)cr:cl, ciltod 08.07 2019. il is evident thal L l( titi, n, r cloes nrrl ])o rs3ss plot with requisite measurcmerr.; a^j on thc rlate o1' subrri ;sion of application, dated 10 O I .;]()l ) But ftrr

¶44

¶45

mrsrepresentation made by the petitioner in her application mentioning measurement of plot as 30 meters x 30 meters, the pctitioner could not have been included in the eligible candidates to subject her application for clrar,vl ol lots. It is only because of wrong description of measurements of plot mentioned by the petitioner in the application dated 10.O1.2O19 submitted by her, her candidature was taken up for consideration. But for the misreprescntation, the application of the petitioner ought to have been rejected by the corporation at the initial stage. The application of the petitioner was rejected only on the ground that the petitioner does not possess the plot of requisite size as on the date of submission of application dated 1O.01.2O19. In the light of above discussion, this Court does not find any error, illegality or arbitrarincss in the action of the respondent corporation in rejecting the application of the petitioner. In the light of the above, there are no merits in the Writ Petition and the same is liable to be dismissed.

¶46