Ownership documentation and eligibility criteria must be fulfilled at the time of application submission for distributorship; prior acceptance does not negate subsequent verification of ownership.

JUDGMENT :

RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.

1. Rule. Rule made returnable and heard finally, by the consent of the parties.

2. Being aggrieved by the communication dated 08.01.2024, issued by the Respondent – Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. (“IOCL”), holding the Petitioner to be ineligible for participating in the selection process, that the Petitioner has preferred this Writ Petition.

3. The Petitioner is an Ex-Serviceman. On his application, in response to the advertisement dated 01.09.2017, IOCL issued him a letter of intent dated 31.12.2018, considering his proposal as a distributor of LPG from the Ex-Serviceman category. According to the Petitioner, acting upon this letter of intent, he carved out an area of 10,000 sq.ft from his agricultural land, for construction of the godown by borrowing an amount of Rs. 7,20,000/-. He constructed the godown by spending around Rs.15,00,000/- and also developed a showroom by using a portion of his house no. 238. It is alleged that, earlier, IOCL, had wrongly cancelled the letter of intent after these developments. Therefore, the Petitioner had preferred Writ Petition No. 1445/2020. This Court, by order 06.09.2021, set aside the order of cancellation of the letter of intent.

4. Thereafter, on 08.01.2024, a communication was received by the Petitioner wherein it is mentioned that he is ineligible for participation in the selection process on the ground that house no. 238, offered for setting up the showroom, did not belong to the Petitioner on the date of the filing of the application.

5. According to the Petitioner, house no. 238 is received by him in the family partition that was effected way back in the year 2005. It is claimed that the IOCL was satisfied about the suitability as well as the title of house no. 238 on verification of documents then available with the Petitioner. The brother of the Petitioner raised issue about the title of house no. 238, but IOCL did not find any merit in such complaint. Eventually, the letter of intent was cancelled, but for an altogether different reason. It is further pleaded that after the order in Writ Petition No. 1445/2020, the brother of the Petitioner again raised the issue with IOCL and on the basis of the said complaint, the impugned order came to be passed.

6. We have heard the learned Advocates for the both sides, extensively and have perused the pleadings and the documents on record.

7. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner has strenuously contended that IOCL has fallen in an error in not considering the fact that, previously on the same ground, an objection was raised by the Petitioner, which was not considered and now, without application of mind, the claim of the Petitioner for the LPG distributorship has been rejected. He drew our attention to the documents placed on record, more particularly, the deed of partition dated 13.05.2002. According to him, house no. 238 came to the share of the Petitioner. The record of the Grampanchayat indicates the same to be in his name and the taxes are regularly paid. According to him, the objection was raised by the brother of the Petitioner raising a doubt about the ownership of the Petitioner in respect of the house in which showroom is now set up by the Petitioner. IOCL was satisfied in respect of the contention of the Petitioner and as such, the objection raised then, by the brother of the Petitioner, was not considered as a ground for cancellation of the dealership.

8. It is claimed that, by the communication dated 19.11.2019, a show cause notice was issued to the Petitioner for cancellation of the distributorship on the ground that he is not permitted to induct any partner or make any