IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Sandeep K.Shinde, V.V.Joshi, JJ.
Sharda Arun Morghare – Appellant
Versus
Secretary Ministry Of Petroleum – Respondent
Writ Petition No. 4017 of 2021
Decided On : 21-12-2022
Land Ownership - Retail Outlet Dealership - Guidelines - Clause 4(v) - Summary: The court reviewed the guidelines for dealership of Retail Outlets, particularly Clause 4(v) which classifies applicants into three groups based on land ownership. The court emphasized the importance of the conformity letter from an advocate in determining the eligibility of the offered land and the applicant's title to it. The court found the rejection of the petitioner's candidature under Group-1 due to the conformity letter being of a later date than the application unjust and arbitrary, and quashed the decision.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged the communication from Indian Oil Corporation Limited (IOCL) declaring her candidature for Retail Outlet Dealership as ineligible and placing her in Group-3 due to a conformity letter from an advocate being of a later date than the application.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the rejection of the petitioner's candidature under Group-1 unjust and arbitrary, and quashed the decision, directing the respondents to place the petitioner's candidature under Group-1.
Issues: The main issue was the rejection of the petitioner's candidature under Group-1 due to the conformity letter from an advocate being of a later date than the application.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of the conformity letter from an advocate in determining the eligibility of the offered land and the applicant's title to it. The rejection based solely on the conformity letter being of a later date than the application was deemed unjust and arbitrary.
Final Decision: The petition was allowed, and the Rule was made absolute, quashing the impugned communication and directing the respondents to place the petitioner's candidature under Group-1.
JUDGMENT
SANDEEP K.SHINDE,J. - Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With Rane consent of the parties, Petition is taken up for final hearing.
2. This Petition, under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, challenges the communication dtd. 1/7/2021, issued by the Head of Divisional Office, Nagpur Divisional Office, Indian Oil Corporation Limited ( IOCL , for short). By which, the candidature of the " " Petitioner for Retail Outlet Dealership on National Highway -6 from Nagpur to Raipur between KM Stone 458 to 468 in Group-I, was declared ineligible and petitioner has been placed in Group-3, as per guidelines.
3. The respondents in their reply have explained their policy as to the dealership of Retail Outlets. In terms of it, dealership of Retail Outlets are of three categories; namely Group-1; consisting of candidates having ownership of land; Group-2-consisting of candidates having firm offer , of land; and Group-3-consisting of " " candidates not having any land. As such, candidates in Group-1, are given a priority over Group-2 and Group-3 candidates and candidates in Group-2 are given a priority over Group-3 candidates. The Petitioner, in pursuant to notice/advertisement issued by the IOCL inviting applications for dealership of the Retail Outlet, submitted online application on 5/12/2018 for the aforesaid location in Group-1 by furnishing ownership details of land, in Column No.13 of the form, details of which were as under :-
13. Land details - Group 1 (copy of proof of ownership of land would be required to be submitted as and when advised Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.)
4. In terms of the Guidelines, the applicants under Group-1 were to establish ownership of land offered for the dealership as on date of application, whereas the land owned by family members would be considered as belonging to applicants (Group-1) subject to producing the consent letter in form of Affidavit (Appendix-IIIA) from the concerned family members. However, for Group-2 applicants, the firm offer of land would include the land " " offered from third party based on agreement to purchase/ long term lease and offer letter should be in form of Affidavit (Appendix-IIIA) alongwith the title documents to establish the ownership of land offered for the dealership. In addition thereto, in terms of sub-clause-k of Clause4(v), each applicant was obliged to arrange for a conformity letter from Advocate (Appendix-IIIB) giving details of current ownership, documents relied upon and category in which the land falls, whether, Group-1 or Group-2, as on date of application.
5. In the case at hand, the petitioner submitted application through online mode on prescribed web portal on 5/12/2018 declaring that offered land falls in Category 'A'. As per the notice/advertisement, last date scheduled for submitting the online applications was 24/12/2018. Thus, Petitioner's application was in time. Here, although the Petitioner submitted online application on 5/12/2018, conformity letter from advocate in Appendix-III-B was dated 12th August, submitted on 14/5/2018. The respondents rejected the Petitioner's candidature under Group-A, reason being conformity letter of advocate in Appendix-III-B was of later date, than the date of the application. Resultantly. the Petitioner was placed under Group-3. To appreciate the controversy-fact in issue, we deem it appropriate to reproduce letter of rejection, which read as under;
Subject: Application for award of RO dealership at On RHS on NH 6 from Nagpur to Raipur between KM stone 458 to 468 District. BHAN DARA under OBC category Advertised on 25-Nov-2018 Dear Madam,
1. Please refer to your application received by us as Application form No. 15439893546251 on the subject,
2. Please also refer to our letter dated 10-Mar-2021 and wherein you were advised to subrait certain documents.
3. However, it is observed that land documents submitted by you are not valid for considering the offered land under Group 1 for reasons as detail
The conformity letter from an advocate plays a crucial role in determining the eligibility of the offered land and the applicant's title to it, and the rejection based solely on the conformity letter....
Point of Law : Candidature of petitioner under Group-1 was rejected/found ineligible with an observation that candidature of the petitioner would be considered for selection along with Group-3 applic....
Applicants must meet the eligibility criteria for the respective groups and submit necessary documents as per the requirement of the group applied for.
The court upheld the rejection of the petitioner's application for a retail outlet dealership due to failure to meet land suitability criteria as per the Brochure guidelines.
The importance of the offered land and the mode of selection by draw of lots among the categorized groups as per the brochure for selection of dealers of the respondent Corporation.
The court affirmed that applicants must be provided an opportunity to rectify deficiencies in their land documentation before rejection of their dealership applications, emphasizing the principles of....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.