Back
2019 Supreme(Raj) 785
IN THE HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
SANGEET LODHA, VINIT KUMAR MATHUR, JJ.
Kanta Chouhan - Appellant
Versus
Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. and Ors - Respondent
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 49 of 2019
Decided On : 06-08-2019
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Sanjeet Purohit and Hemant Balani
For the Respondent: Sandeep Shah, Puneet Parihar, Manoj Bhandari and Rajesh Parihar
Headnote:
Right to Information Act, 2005 – Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 – Section 90A – Appeal against order passed by learned Single Judge of court, whereby writ petition preferred by appellant, respondent-Indian Oil Corporation Limited issued advertisement for awarding LPG Distributorship at various places in State of Rajasthan. appellant as also fifth respondent applied for award of LPG Distributorship of IOCL at location Sojat City, under OBC category. award of Regular LPG Distributorship to be governed by Guidelines issued by oil companies as laid down in Brochure published in the month of December, As per sub clause of clause 6.1 an individual applying for distributorship required to own plot of land of adequate size for construction of godown, for storage of 8000 kg. of LPG in cylinders or ready LPG storage godown as on last date for submission of application as specified in advertisement or corrigendum issued, if any, which is freely accessible through all weather motorable approach road case of private road connecting public road, same should belong to applicant/member of Family Unit as defined in multiple distributorship norm of eligibility criteria, in case of ownership/co-ownership by family members in respect of such private road, consent letter from respective family member required –Held, Land for godown as prescribed under clause 6.1(g) of Guidelines, IOCL could not have relaxed same and permit fifth respondent to provide all weather approach road to the godown at the later stage. It is quite possible that many persons who were otherwise eligible to apply for the LPG Distributorship in question, might not have even applied for the reason that they were not fulfilling eligibility criteria in respect of land for the godown as on the last date of submission of the application. Thus, action of the IOCL in relaxing the eligibility criteria for the respondent dehors the Guidelines issued, apparently, lacks in transparency, which cannot be countenanced by this court on account of action of IOCL in not rejecting candidature of fifth respondent on account of his lacking in eligibility criteria, apparently, right of appellant and her likes of participation in draw of lot afresh for award of distributorship in question, is adversely affected – Appeal is allowed. (Para 21, 23)
Facts of the case:
Appeal against order passed by learned Single Judge of court, whereby writ petition preferred by appellant, respondent-Indian Oil Corporation Limited issued advertisement for awarding LPG Distributorship at various places in State of Rajasthan. appellant as also fifth respondent applied for award of LPG Distributorship of IOCL at location Sojat City, under OBC category. award of Regular LPG Distributorship to be governed by Guidelines issued by oil companies as laid down in Brochure published in the month of December, As per sub clause of clause 6.1 an individual applying for distributorship required to own plot of land of adequate size for construction of godown, for storage of 8000 kg. of LPG in cylinders or ready LPG storage godown as on last date for submission of application as specified in advertisement or corrigendum issued, if any, which is freely accessible through all weather motorable approach road case of private road connecting public road, same should belong to applicant/member of Family Unit as defined in multiple distributorship norm of eligibility criteria, in case of ownership/co-ownership by family members in respect of such private road, consent letter from respective family member required
Findings of the court:
Land for godown as prescribed under clause 6.1(g) of Guidelines, IOCL could not have relaxed same and permit fifth respondent to provide all weather approach road to the godown at the later stage. It is quite possible that many persons who were otherwise eligible to apply for the LPG Distributorship in question, might not have even applied for the reason that they were not fulfilling eligibility criteria in respect of land for the godown as on the last date of submission of the application. Thus, action of the IOCL in relaxing the eligibility criteria for the respondent dehors the Guidelines issued, apparently, lacks in transparency, which cannot be countenanced by this court on account of action of IOCL in not rejecting candidature of fifth respondent on account of his lacking in eligibility criteria, apparently, right of appellant and her likes of participation in draw of lot afresh for award of distributorship in question, is adversely affected
Result: Appeal is allowed.
JUDGMENT :
SANGEET LODHA, J.
1. This intra court appeal is directed against the order dated 14.8.18 passed by the learned Single Judge of this court, whereby the writ petition preferred by the appellant, questioning the legality of Letter of Intent (LoI) dated 19.10.15 issued in favour of the fifth respondent-Girdhari Lal offering him LPG Distributorship at Sojat, has been dismissed.
2. The facts relevant are that the oil companies including respondent-Indian Oil Corporation Limited (IOCL) issued an advertisement for awarding LPG Distributorship at various places in the State of Rajasthan. The appellant as also the fifth respondent applied for award of LPG Distributorship of IOCL at location Sojat City, District Pali under OBC category. The award of Regular LPG Distributorship was to be governed by the Guidelines issued by the oil companies as laid down in the Brochure published in the month of December, 2012. As per sub clause (vii) of clause 6.1 an individual applying for the distributorship was required to own a plot of land of adequate size (within 15 kms. from municipal/town/village limits of the location offered in the same State) for construction of godown, for storage of 8000 kg. of LPG in cylinders or ready LPG storage godown as on the last date for submission of application as specified in the advertisement or corrigendum issued, if any, which is freely accessible through all weather motorable approach road (public road or private road connecting to the public road). In case of private road connecting the public road, the same should belong to the applicant/member of Family Unit as defined in multiple distributorship norm of eligibility criteria. Further, in case of ownership/co-ownership by the family members in respect of such private road, consent letter from respective family member was required.
3. The appellant came to know that the fifth respondent has offered the land for construction of godown which did not meet the requirements as laid down by the guidelines and he had submitted forged documents to establish his eligibility for grant of distributorship. The appellant by way of an application filed under Right to Information Act, 2005 ('RTI Act') to IOCL to furnish the details of the land and other documents submitted by the fifth respondent. The application of the appellant was rejected by IOCL vide communication dated 10.2.15 while referring to provisions of Section 8(1)(e) and 8(1)(j) of RTI Act. The appeal preferred by the appellant against the order rejecting the application was also dismissed by the Appellate Authority by passing a non speaking order.
4. Pursuant to the draw of lot conducted, the fifth respondent was selected for award of distributorship in question. On the basis of the document produced by the fifth respondent, Field Verification of Credentials (FVC) was conducted for assessing his eligibility. The IOCL found the fifth respondent eligible and accordingly, issued an LoI in his favour on 19.10.15.
5. On the basis of the application filed by the fifth respondent under Section 90A of Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 (for short "the Act of 1956") seeking the change of the land use for construction of godown, the appellant came to know that the land offered by him for construction of the godown does not meet the criteria laid down under the Guidelines inasmuch as, the land offered was not connected with the public road as required.
6. As a matter of fact, the concerned patwari after site inspection submitted the report clarifying that the land comprising khasra No. 1852, which was offered by the fifth respondent for the purposes of godown was not connected with the public road. The patwari reported that in between the land offered by the fifth respondent and the public road comes a land which has been recorded in the name of an independent khatedar falling under khasra No. 1855. It is submitted that for this reason, the application preferred by the fifth respondent under Section 90A of the Act of
