Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN
Vijay Bishnoi, J.
Vikram Singh Chundawat & Ors. - Petitioners
Versus
Senior Manager, Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. & Ors. - Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6929 of 2013
Decided On : 09-01-2018
DEALER SELECTION - RETAIL OUTLET - LAND AVAILABILITY - OWN LAND/LONG LEASE/FIRM OFFER - EVALUATION CRITERIA - INTERPRETATION OF GUIDELINES - VALIDITY OF LEASE DEED - AGRICULTURE LAND CONVERSION - REDUCTION OF MARKS - RE-INTERVIEW.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner challenged the action of Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited (HPCL) in appointing/selecting a dealer for a retail outlet of petroleum products. The petitioner and respondent No. 3 were interviewed for the location in question, and the petitioner initially secured higher marks. However, HPCL received a complaint regarding the land offered by the petitioner, and upon investigation, it was found that the lease deeds for the agricultural land offered by the petitioner were for a period of 30 years, which was invalid as per Section 45 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955. Consequently, HPCL reduced the petitioner's marks under the head 'land and infrastructure' and changed his rank from No. 1 to No. 2. The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging this action, and during its pendency, HPCL decided to redo the dealer selection process.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner's land offer could only be considered a firm offer, as he neither owned the land nor had a long lease registered for a minimum period of 30 years. The court also noted that the petitioner had admitted that the land offered by him was agricultural land and that a valid lease for agricultural land by a Khatedar could be created only for five years as per Section 45 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955. The court held that the reduction of marks by HPCL under the head 'land and infrastructure' was justified, and that the re-interview would not cause any prejudice to the petitioner.
Issues: 1. Whether the land offered by the petitioner for the retail outlet was owned by him or was on a long lease registered for a minimum period of 30 years. 2. Whether the reduction of marks by HPCL under the head 'land and infrastructure' was justified. 3. Whether the re-interview ordered by HPCL would cause any prejudice to the petitioner.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court interpreted the Guidelines for selection of retail outlet dealers issued by HPCL in September 2011, specifically Clause 12 regarding the availability of suitable land and Clause 16 regarding the allocation of marks on various parameters. 2. The court held that the petitioner's land offer could only be considered a firm offer, as he neither owned the land nor had a long lease registered for a minimum period of 30 years. The court also noted that the petitioner had admitted that the land offered by him was agricultural land and that a valid lease for agricultural land by a Khatedar could be created only for five years as per Section 45 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955. 3. The court held that the reduction of marks by HPCL under the head 'land and infrastructure' was justified, as the petitioner's land offer did not meet the criteria for 'own land' or 'long lease'. The court also held that the re-interview would not cause any prejudice to the petitioner, as he would get an opportunity to appear in the interview.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petitions filed by the petitioner, finding no merit in the challenges raised.
Vijay Bishnoi, J.
In both these writ petitions, the petitioner has questioned the action of the respondent-Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited (for short 'the HPCL' hereinafter) of appointing/selecting a dealer for the retail outlet of petroleum products at location "Within 2 Km from Varda Police Station on Varda-Sagwara Road, District Dungarpur" (for short 'the location in question' hereinafter).
2. Vide advertisement dated 19.09.2011, the HPCL invited applications from the eligible candidates for selection/appointment of dealers for the retail outlet of petroleum products at various locations including the location in question.
3. As per the facts, which are not in dispute, as many as five candidates were interviewed by the respondent - HPCL on 20.08.2012 for the location in question and a provisional select list was declared on 20.08.2012, wherein the petitioner and Bhim Singh (respondent No. 3 in both the writ petitions) stood at serial No. 1 and 2 respectively. As per the provisional select list, out of 100 marks, the petitioner had secured 84.81 marks, whereas the respondent No. 3 had secured 81.73 marks.
4. Later on, the respondent-HPCL received a complaint in respect of the land offered by the petitioner for establishment of a retail outlet and after taking into consideration the various discrepancies in the status of land offered by the petitioner and particularly the fact that the lease-deeds of agriculture land offered by the petitioner are for a period of 30 years but as per Section 45 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955, the lease of agriculture land for more than 5 years is invalid, the respondent-HPCL has concluded that the marks awarded to the petitioner under the head 'land and infrastructure' is liable to be reduced from 31.15 to 22.25 and as such the total marks awarded to the petitioner are changed from 84.81 to 75.91. Resultantly, the rank of the petitioner in the merit panel was changed from No. 1 to No. 2. Information whereof was communicated to the petitioner vide letter dated 22.11.2012.
5. Being aggrieved with this, the petitioner has preferred SBCWP No. 13000/2012, wherein this Court issued notices on 11.12.2012 to the respondents, however, no interim order was granted. During the pendency of the said writ petition, the respondent-HPCL vide letter dated 15.12.2012 informed the petitioner that in view of change in impanelment, the Redressal Committee after going through the documents viz. complaint letter, policy guidelines along with copy of mark-sheet/TEC, investigation report etc. has advised to redo the dealer selection process for the location in question. Later on, pursuant to the same, the petitioner was called for interview before the selection committee on 12.06.2013 at 10:00 A.M. vide letter dated 28.05.2013 and being aggrieved with the same, the petitioner has preferred SBCWP NO.6929/2013. On 22.07.2013, while issuing notices of the said writ petition, this Court restrained the respondent-HPCL from making allotment of retail outlet dealership in question.
6. Now the core question involved in these writ petitions is whether the agriculture land offered by the petitioner for establishment of retail outlet is a land owned by the petitioner or the petitioner is having land on long lease (registered for maximum period of 30 years) or the petitioner has given a firm offer of land.
7. It is not in dispute that the Guidelines for selection of retail outlet dealers issued by the HPCL from September 2011 are applicable in the present controversy. Clause 12 of the said Guidelines regarding the availability of suitable land is reproduced hereunder:
"12. Availability of suitable land:
Availability of suitable land for setting up of retail outlets at the advertised location is the essence of the dealership. Wherever it has been indicated in the advertisement that land is also required at the adve
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
