Moumita Poddar vs Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2010 Supreme(SC) 656

Supreme Court of India
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALTAMAS KABIR, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CYRIAC JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR
Smt. Moumita Poddar
Versus
Indian Oil Corporation Ltd & Another
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 6071-6072 OF 2010 (Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 2102930 of 2008)
Decided on : 30-07-2010

Advocates appeared:
For the Appellants:Manoj, Ms. Aparna Sinha, Abhijat P. Medh, Advocates. For the Repsondents:Parag P. Tripathi, P.K. Goswami, Sr. Advocates, H.K. Puri, Ms. Priya Puri, V.M. Chauhan, S.K. Puri, Rajiv Mehta, A. Henry, Advocates.

Headnote:(a) Transfer of Property Act, 1882 – Section 107 – Registration of lease deed – Compulsory for enforcing legal rights – Unregistered, duly notorized lease deed to be used a proof of availability of land – Valid document. (Para 26)
       (b) Administrative law – Provision of site selection before interview published after instant selection completed – Such provision not made retrospective – Cannot be invoked. (Para 29)
       (2001) 10 SCC 305 – Distinguished
       © Constitution of India – Article 136 and 142 – Subsequent events – Equitable considerations – Consideration of – Permissible to do complete justice. (Para 32, 34, 36)
       (2004) 8 SCC 76; (1987) 4 SCC 391; (1982) 3 SCC 331; (1999) 2 SCC 635 – Relied upon
       (1957) SCR 359 – Referred
       Facts of the case:
       Indian Oil Corporation, respondent No.1, published a notice on 19.2.2004 for appointment of Retail Outlet Dealership in local newspapers in the State of Tripura situated at Ranirbazar and Agartala. The advertisement shows that for Ranirbazar, the type of dealership offered was "Dealer owned", and the dealership at both the locations were for women. At Ranirbazar the dealership was only for Open Category (Women).
       Nine persons, including the appellant and the Respondent No.2, appeared before the Interview Board. The interview board, upon evaluation of the inter se merits of all the nine applicants, in terms of the policy circular dated 4.9.2003, empanelled three candidates in order of merit. Respondent No.2 is placed at Sl.No.1 in order of merit. The appellant was not amongst the first three candidates and was consequently not empanelled. After the declaration of the result, the site offered by respondent No.2 was verified by respondent No.1 on 29.6.2004. By a communication dated 8.7.2004, respondent No.2 was informed that Letter of Intent had been issued in her favour.
       The action of respondent No.1 in offering the letter of intent to respondent No.2 was challenged by the appellant before the High Court. The Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the petition.
       Finding of the Court:
       The single Judge of the High Court ought not have scrapped the entire selection process.
       Result:
       Both appeals dismissed.

Judgment :

SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. These appeals have been filed against the judgment and order passed by the High Court of Assam, Nagaland, Meghalaya, Manipur, Mizoram, Arunachal Pradesh and Tripura, Bench at Agartala in Writ Appeal No: 53/2005 along with connected Writ Appeal No: 54/2005, wherein the Division Bench was pleased to set aside the common order of the Single Judge in W.P (C) No. 259/2004.

3. We may briefly notice here the facts which are necessary to decide the legal issues raised herein:

Indian Oil Corporation, respondent No.1, published a notice on 19.2.2004 for appointment of Retail Outlet Dealership in local newspapers in the State of Tripura situated at Ranirbazar and Agartala. The advertisement shows that for Ranirbazar, the type of dealership offered was "Dealer owned". The advertisement further indicates that dealership at both the locations were for women. At Ranirbazar the dealership was only for Open Category (Women). The last date for submission of applications was 19.03.2004. The relevant clauses for advertisement were as under:

"NOTICE

Appointment of Retail Outlet Dealer Indian Oil Corporation Limited (Marketing division) Invites applications for appointment of Dealers for Retail Outlet dealership in the State of Tripura at the following locations for dealer owned/ Company Owned Retail Outlets on site owned by Dealer/to be taken by the Company on outright sale or lease:

Sl. Location Revenue Type of D'ship Category

No. Dist. Co. Owned/

Dealer owned

1. Ranirbazar West Dealer owned OP

Tripura (Women)

2 Agartala West Company ST

Tripura owned (Women)

Important Note

(a) The candidate should furnish along with the application, details of land, which he/she may make available for the Retail Outlet.

(b) Considering the location of the land from the point of view of suitability from commercial angle and rates acceptable to IOCL (AOD), applicants already having land and willing to transfer the land on ownership/long lease to IOCL (AOD), would be given preference.

(c) If an applicant, after selection is unable to provide the land indicated by him/her in the application form within a period of two (2) months from the date of Letter of Intent (LOI), the Company will have the right to cancel the allotment of dealership to him/her. Suitability of land will be decided by the Company. There is no commitment from the Company for taking the offered land from the applicant."

"14. APPLICATION FORMS AND ENCLOSURES COMPLETE IN ALL RESPECTS MUST BE SUBMITTED IN DUPLICATE ALONG WITH NON-REFUNDABLE FEE SO AS TO REACH THE OFFICE ADDRESS MENTIONED ABOVE BEFORE THE CLOSE OF OFFICE ON 19.03.2004."

4. In response to this advertisement, the appellant submitted her application on 12.3.2004, for appointment of Retail Outlet Dealer in Open Category (Women) for the location at Ranirbazar. In her application, the appellant offered to set up the dealership on land, purchased by her mother-in-law, being C.S. Plot Nos. 2172, 2173 and 2174/4035 and another land purchased by her father-in-law, Mr. Binoy Krishna Poddar, measuring 1.36 Acres in Dag No.1075, Hal Dag No. 1679 of Khatian No.491 situated in Mouja Bridhya Nagar, Tehsil: Khoyerpur, Bridhya Nagar at the periphery of Ranirbazar, the entire area being commonly known as Ranirbazar. According to the appellant, the aforesaid land being situated on the Assam-Agartala Road, (National Highway-44) with the frontage of 51.5 Metres on the road, is most suitable for the purpose of setting up the Retail Outlet. Both her mother-in-law and father-in-law furnished an undertaking that the said land could be used by the appellant for the aforesaid purpose. They had duly executed documents expressing their readiness and willingness to allow the appellant to use the aforesaid land for installation of the retail outlet dealership and to lease out the same to respondent No.1, on long term basis, if she was offered a letter of intent. All the relevant documents were furnished with the application

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2010 Supreme(SC) 656

Cases Referred (6)