Back
2004 Supreme(Bom) 913
BOMBAY HIGH COURT AT PANAJI, GOA
S.A. BOBDE AND N.A. BRITTO, JJ.
Devidas Rama Chari - Petitioner
Versus
Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd., Ballard Estate, Mumbai and others – Respondents
Writ Petition No. 112 of 2000
Decided on: 5th July, 2004
N.N. Sardessai. Advocate, for the petitioner
S.D. Lotlikar, Sr. Advocate with R.S. Sardessai. Advocate, for respondents No.1 and 2
M.S. Sonak with Ms. A. Shirodkar, Advocates for respondent No.3.
The court's decision emphasized the importance of timely approach to the court and the discretionary nature of the court's power to grant relief under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Headnote:
Arbitrary Allotment - Petrol Pump/ Retail Outlet - VOLUME/DISTANCE NORMS FOR SETTING UP RETAIL OUTLETS - The court discussed the guidelines for setting up retail outlets, emphasizing the requirement to readvertise if no suitable place was available and the need for transparency in public action. The court found the company's action arbitrary for not following its own guidelines, but due to the petitioner's delay, decided not to grant relief.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged the allotment of a petrol pump/retail outlet by respondent No. 1 in favor of respondent No.3 at Borim, Ponda. The petitioner claimed the allotment was arbitrary and did not comply with the guidelines issued by the Company for allotment and/or location of the petrol pump/retail outlets.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the company's action arbitrary for not following its own guidelines, but due to the petitioner's delay of almost four years in approaching the court, it decided not to grant any relief in favor of the petitioner as against respondent No.3.
Issues: The issues included the arbitrary allotment of the petrol pump/retail outlet and the delay in approaching the court for relief.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the petitioner's delay in approaching the court, as well as the respondent No.3's substantial investments and change in lifestyle towards the establishment of the petrol pump/retail outlet.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed, and the parties were left to bear their own costs.
Per Britto. J.
The petitioner, in a petition under Articles 14, 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. challenges the allotment of a petrol pump/retail outlet by respondent No. 1 in favour of respondent No.3 at Borim, Ponda.
2. Briefly stated, respondent No. 1 ('Company' for short) published an advertisement on or about 27.3.1993, seeking applications from eligible persons for being appointed as a dealer as per eligibility criteria prescribed therein. Although the petitioner claims to have and in Village Shiroda, the petitioner did not respond to the said advertisement. Respondent No.3 did respond and so did many others.
3. Subsequently, the Oil Selection Board which, we are told, was presided over by a retired High Court Judge at the relevant time, short listed respondent No.3 and respondent No. 3 was issued with a letter of intent dated 7.1.1994. As per the said letter of intent, respondent No.3 was required to arrange for a suitable plot of 50 x 50 metres at Shiroda on Ponda - Sanvordem road within a period of four months and was also required to comply with other conditions. Respondent No.3 went on representing to the Company that he was unable to find a suitable plot within Shiroda Village, as per the said advertisement and finally submitted a letter from the Gram Panchayat of Shiroda, dated 5.7.1994 certifying that a plot was not available for the purpose of setting up a petrol pump/retail outlet at Shiroda. Respondent No.3 also represented that a plot was available at a nearby location at Borim. This proposal of respondent No.3 was subsequently put up before a committee consisting of the representatives of the industry which, at its meeting. held on 21.3.1996 was pleased to approve the site at Borim and, subsequently, at the new site at Borim, the said petrol pump/retail outlet came to be commissioned on 31.3.1996. Prior to that, at the instance of respondent No.3, the Additional District Magistrate, Panaji by a Public Notice on Official Gazette dated 7.3.1996 and 'Gomantak Times' and 'Sunaprant' dailies, dated 1.3.1996 sought objections from the interested persons against the selling up or the said petrol pump at Borim. None objected.
4. The said allotment or the petrol pump in favour or respondent No. 3 by the Company is sought to be assailed by the petitioner as being arbitrary, as not complying with the very guidelines issued by the Company for allotment and/or location or the petrol pump/retail outlets.
A copy of the said guidelines known as "VOLUME/DISTANCE NORMS FOR SETTING UP RETAIL OUTLETS" have been produced. The relevant, guidelines reads as follows :
"C. Locations which meet V/D norms and where there is no response to Advertisement/No eligible candidate/suitable land not being available.
Dealership must be advertised at least twice. One advertisement released should be under the revised guidelines.
NOTE: All 'substitute' locations in lieu of 'dropped' locations. must be in the same SOC/Class of market in the same State is permissible after Industry Members' concurrence at SLC level that no location meeting V/D norms is available in same class of market as that of the "dropped" location.
All 'substitute' locations must be concurred at. SLC level by all Industry Members for inclusion in a Market Plan/Supplementary.
Advertisements for 'substitute' locations can be released only after these are included in a subsequent Marketing Plan/Supplementary,"
5. The action of not advertising twice because no suitable place was available at Shirdoa or the action of not readvertising at the changed place at Borim, is sought to be justified by the respondents by submitting that the place next chosen at Borim was on the same road, viz. the said Sanvordem - Ponda road as well as within the same constituency of Shiroda. We are not inclined to accept the said contention of the respondents that the next changed location being within the same constituency as well on the same road would have made no difference. In our opinion, w
