SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2018 Supreme(SC) 1216

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
R. BANUMATHI, INDIRA BANERJEE, JJ.
Sanjay Kumar Jha – Appellant
VERSUS
Prakash Chandra Chaudhary & Ors. – Respondents
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 11857-11859 OF 2018 (@ SLP(C) NOS. 16899-16901 OF 2018) WITH CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 11860-11862 OF 2018 (@ SLP(C) NOS. 16902-16904 OF 2018)
Decided On : 05-12-2018

Advocates Appeared: For the Appellants :Mr. Rana Mukherjee, Sr. Advocate, Shekhar Kumar, Ms. Kasturika K., Ms. Ekta Pradhan, Ms. Priya Puri, Sharad Puri, Raman Dubey, Ms. Vineeta Meghrajani, Advocates
For the Respondent:Mr. Subhro Sanyal, Advocate.

IMPORTANT POINT
High Court cannot adjudicate disputed questions of fact.

Headnote:Constitution of India – Article 226 – High Court does not adjudicate disputed facts – Instantly, High Court embarking upon adjudication of whether the land offered by respondent was within Giriyama Mauza of Falka Block – Ignoring report of revenue authorities – Substituting its own findings for finding of facts – Not permissible. (Para 13, 14, 16, 19, 21)

       Facts of the case:

       Indian Oil Corporation issued an advertisement inviting applications for different Kisan Seva Kendra (Retail Outlet) dealerships in respect of diesel, petrol, lubricant oils etc., at different locations. One of the retail outlets was to be located on Falka Gerabari Road, within one kilometer from Giriyama Chowk, Giriyama in Katihar District in Bihar (Giriyama retail outlet).

       Sanjay Kumar Jha, the appellant, and the respondent No.1 amongst others, applied for the dealership of the Giriyama retail outlet.

       The Giriyama retail outlet was allotted to the first empanelled candidate being the appellant Sunil Kumar Jha. Challenging the allotment, the respondent Prakash Chandra Chaudhary filed a writ petition/

       The Single Bench of the High court allowed the writ petition and directed the Indian Oil Corporation to grant dealership of the Giriyama retail outlet to the respondent Prakash Chandra Chaudhary.

       Finding of the Court:

       High Court cannot adjudicate disputed questions of fact.

       Result: Appeals allowed.

JUDGMENT

Indira Banerjee, J.

Leave granted.

2. These appeals are against the judgment and final orders dated 24.04.2017 passed by a Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Patna dismissing the appeal being LPA No. 855 of 2016 against the judgment and order dated 8.3.2016 of a learned Single Judge inter alia allowing the writ petition filed by the respondent, Prakash Chandra Chaudhary being CWJ Case No. 2019 of 2015 and directing the Indian Oil Corporation, being the Appellant in SLP (C) No. 16902-16904 of 2018 to issue the Letter of Intent allotting the retail outlet in issue in writ petition to the said respondent and also an order dated 14.3.2018 dismissing the applications for review of the said judgment and order dated 24.3.2017 of the Division Bench being Civil Review No. 215 of 2017 and Civil Review No. 231 of 2017 in LPA No. 855 of 2016.

3. On 19.8.2011, Indian Oil Corporation issued an advertisement in, inter alia, the Dainik Jagran, Patna inviting applications for different Kisan Seva Kendra (Retail Outlet) dealerships in respect of diesel, petrol, lubricant oils etc., at different locations. One of the retail outlets being the retail outlet in respect of which the writ petition being CWJ Case No. 2019 of 2015 was filed, was to be located on Falka Gerabari Road, within one kilometer from Giriyama Chowk, Giriyama in Katihar District in Bihar, and is hereinafter referred to, for convenience, as the Giriyama retail outlet.

4. Pursuant to the said advertisement, Sanjay Kumar Jha being the appellant in appeal arising out of SLP(C) No. 16899-16901 of 2018, (hereinafter referred to as the appellant Sanjay Kumar Jha) and the respondent No.1 in appeal arising out of SLP(C) No. 16902-16904 of 2018 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Respondent Prakash Chandra Chaudhary’) amongst others, applied for the dealership of the Giriyama retail outlet.

5. The brochure published by Indian Oil Corporation indicates that the eligible applicants who were individuals were to be evaluated on the basis of the following broad parameters:-

a. Capability to provide land and infrastructure/facilities (35marks)

b. Capability to provide finance (25 marks)

c. Educational Qualifications (15 marks)

d. Ability to generate business (10 marks)

e. Age (4 marks)

f. Experience (4 marks)

g. Business ability/ Acumen (5 marks)

h. Personality (2 marks)

6. It appears that a panel of three candidates was prepared in which the appellant Sanjay Kumar Jha was placed on the first position and the respondent Prakash Chandra Chaudhary in the second position. The appellant Sanjay Kumar Jha was awarded 90.73 marks and the respondent Prakash Chandra Choudhary was awarded 89.93 marks.

7. The Giriyama retail outlet was allotted to the first empanelled candidate being the appellant Sunil Kumar Jha. Challenging the allotment, the respondent Prakash Chandra Chaudhary filed a writ petition in the High Court Judicature at Patna being CWJ Case No. 2019 of 2015.

8. By an order dated 8.3.2016, the learned Single Bench of the High court allowed the writ petition and directed the Indian Oil Corporation to grant dealership of the Giriyama retail outlet to the respondent Prakash Chandra Chaudhary.

9. The learned Single Bench proceeded on the erroneous notion that, as per the advertisement, the only requirement for the Giriyama retail outlet was that the retail outlet should be in Giriyama within one kilometer on a particular well-defined road.

10. The learned Single Bench proceeded on the premises that, the land of the respondent, Prakash Chandra Chaudhary, being the writ-petitioner, was undisputedly within Giriyama Mauza in Falka Block, as was the case of the appellant Sunil Kumar Jha, being the respondent no.6 in the writ petition. The Court observed that the report of the Circle Officer and the District Magistrate to the effect that the land of the respondent Prakash Chandra Chaudhary was not in Giriyama was not only erroneous but clearly collusive in that they were trying to favou














Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top