Back
2005 Supreme(Gau) 104
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI
Biplab Kumar Sharma, J.
Kunti Medhi - Appellants
Vs.
Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. and Ors. - Respondent
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 6063 of 2003
Decided On: 07.02.2005
For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff: A.M. Mazumdar, S.S. Dey and U.R. Saikia, Advs.
For Respondents/Defendant: S.N. Sarmah, I. Ahmed and Y.S. Mannan, Advs.
The court emphasized the need for a pragmatic approach to the matter and held that the LOI should have been issued/transferred to the Petitioner, fulfilling all necessary conditions as envisaged in the relevant letter, after observing all necessary formalities.
Headnote:
Writ Petition - Challenge to Allotment of Retail Outlet Dealership - [Citizen Charter, 2001, Letter dated 29.05.97, Letter dated 02.05.01] - The court allowed the writ petition, setting aside and quashing the impugned LOI issued in favor of the Respondent No. 4 and directed the issuance/transfer of the LOI for the retail outlet dealership in question to the Petitioner after observing all necessary formalities.
Fact of the Case:
The Petitioner, a widow belonging to the reserved category, challenged the decision of Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. (HPCL) to allot the Retail Outlet Dealership (ROD) to the Respondent No. 4. The Petitioner's husband was selected as the 1st nominee for the dealership, but the LOI was issued to the Respondent No. 4 after the Petitioner's husband passed away.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the delay in issuing the LOI to the Petitioner's husband, caused by the Respondents' inaction and delayed action, led to the situation where the LOI was issued to the Respondent No. 4. The court held that the Respondents' interpretation of the guidelines and letters was not acceptable and granted the prayers made in the writ application, setting aside and quashing the impugned LOI issued in favor of the Respondent No. 4 and directing the issuance/transfer of the LOI for the retail outlet dealership in question to the Petitioner after observing all necessary formalities.
Issues: The issues involved the delay in issuing the LOI to the Petitioner's husband, the Respondents' interpretation of the guidelines and letters, and the transferability of the LOI under the given circumstances.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Respondents' inaction and delayed action led to the situation where the LOI was issued to the Respondent No. 4, and their interpretation of the guidelines and letters was not acceptable. The court granted the prayers made in the writ application, setting aside and quashing the impugned LOI issued in favor of the Respondent No. 4 and directing the issuance/transfer of the LOI for the retail outlet dealership in question to the Petitioner after observing all necessary formalities.
Final Decision: The writ petition stands allowed, setting aside and quashing the impugned LOI issued in favor of the Respondent No. 4 and directing the issuance/transfer of the LOI for the retail outlet dealership in question to the Petitioner after observing all necessary formalities.
B.K. Sharma, J.
1. By means of this writ application, the Petitioner, a widow belonging to reserved category (SC), has challenged the decision of the Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. (hereinafter called HPCL) to allot the Retail Outlet Dealership (ROD) in question to the Respondent No. 4. The facts leading to filing of the instant writ petition are as follows:
2. Pursuant to an advertisement for ROD at a place called Dabaka issued on 11.09.2000 under open category, the husband of the Petitioner submitted his application for the dealership. According to the Petitioner on an earlier occasion also her husband (Late Sibakanta Medhi) submitted his application for such dealership in response to an advertisement dated 30.12.97. However, the said advertisement was not acted upon by the Respondents. In the advertisement dated 11.09.2000, the following requirements were indicated under the head of IMPORTANT NOTE:
a) The applicant should furnish alongwith application details of land which he/she may make available for the dealership, (b) Considering the location of the land from the point of view of commercials angle, Appellant willing to transfer the land on ownership/long lease to the oil company at the rate acceptable to the oil company would be given preference, (c) If an applicant, after selection is unable to provide indicated by him/her earlier within a period of 2 (two) months, the allotment of the dealership made to him/her would be cancelled.
3. The Dealer Selection Board (DSB) conducted an interview for selection of dealer from amongst the applicants. The selection was held on 21.06.01 and the Petitioner was recommended as the 1st nominee, while the Respondent No. 4 and Anr. as the 2nd and 3rd nominee respectively.
4. As per the assertion made in the writ petition, the Respondents No. 1 and 2, after the aforesaid selection of the Petitioner's husband, deputed the field Officer namely Shri Abhijit Bhattacharyee for field verification regarding credentials of her late husband as well as the commercial viability of the land offered by him. The field verification was conducted in the 3rd and 4th week of July, 2001 by the Respondents No. 1 and 2 through their said Field Officer. After the field verification, her husband was asked to develop the land and get the same ready for installation of ROD. According to the Petitioner the land was taken on long term lease.
5. When the matter rested thus and the Petitioner's husband was waiting for formal Letter of Indent (hereinafter called LOI), some controversy has arisen by a decision of the Central Government whereby allotment of all new dealerships was proposed to be cancelled. Such decision of the Central Government was challenged in various High Courts of the country including this Court and eventually the controversy was resolved by the Apex Court whereby the decision of the Central Government was set aside and quashed.
6. According to the Petitioner, her husband after his selection for the dealership invested a huge sum of money for setting up the same. However, the Respondents delayed the matter towards issuance of LOI and unfortunately her husband expired on 18.02.03 leaving the Petitioner as his sole legal heir. On 02.06.03 the Petitioner made a representation to the Respondents for issuance of LOI in her favour on account of the death of her husband. When the Petitioner was waiting for reply from the Respondents, she received a caveat application filed by the Respondent No. 4 wherefrom she could come to know that it was the Respondent No. 4 and not the Petitioner who had been issued with the LOI under reference No. SM/RTNEW/RO-DAB/LOI dated 18.07.03 offering her ROD at Dabaka, in view of the death of the husband of the Petitioner. Simultaneously she also received a letter of the same date informing her that since no LOI was issued in the name of her husband, there was no question of approval of the same in her favour and accordingly, the request contained in her representati
