IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
AJAY MOHAN GOEL, J.
Seema Devi - Petitioner
Versus
Union of India & others – Respondents
CWP No.4484 Of 2020
Decided On : 12-03-2025
(A) Clause 6 of the Brochure for Retail Outlet dealership - Eligibility criteria for dealership - The petitioner challenged the allotment of a Petrol Pump to a retired government servant, arguing that pension constitutes emoluments, thus violating eligibility criteria. The court held that pension is not a perk or emolument, but a right earned through service. (Paras 5, 8, 10)
(B) Judicial review - The court emphasized that a participant in the allotment process cannot later challenge the decision based on knowledge of existing conditions. (Paras 11)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner sought to prevent the allotment of a Petrol Pump to a retired government servant, claiming violations of dealership eligibility criteria and proximity to a school.
Findings of Court:
The court found no merit in the petitioner's claims and dismissed the petition with costs.
Issues: The main issues were the interpretation of eligibility criteria regarding pension and the challenge based on proximity to a school.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that pension does not disqualify an individual from receiving a dealership and that prior knowledge of conditions precludes later challenges.
Result: Petition dismissed with costs.
JUDGMENT :
(Ajay Mohan Goel, J.)
By way of this Writ Petition, the petitioner has, inter alia, prayed for the following reliefs:-
“i) That writ of mandamus may kindly be issued, directing the respondents No.1 to 3 not to issue the Letter of Appointment (LOA) in favour of Respondent No.4 Shri Nand Lal for running the Retail Outlet dealership at Baroha Block, Tehsil Jhandutta, District Bilaspur, H.P.
ii) That writ of mandamus may kindly be issued, directing the respondent No.4 to stop the construction work for installation of the Retail Outlet dealership at Baroha Block, Tehsil Jhandutta, District Bilaspur, H.P.”
2. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of the present petition are that process was initiated by respondent No.2 for allotment of Retail Outlet dealership, in the year 2018, vide Advertisement, dated 25.11.2018, in different stations in the State of Himachal Pradesh. It also included Baroha Block in Tehsil Jhandutta, District Bilaspur, H.P. To cut the controversy short, both the petitioner as well as the private respondent applied for grant of said Retail Outlet dealership and Baroha, which was advertised under OBC Category. The Petrol Pump was allotted to respondent No.4 and learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondent No.3 has informed the Court that the Petrol Pump is functioning since October, 2022.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that allotment of the Petrol Pump to the petitioner is bad on two counts. He argued that allotment of the Petrol Pump is in violation of Clause- 6 of the Brochure relating to the selection of dealers, copy whereof is appended with this petition as Annexure P-1 and further, the Petrol Pump could not be allotted to the private respondent in the light of the fact that there is a school in close vicinity thereof. No other ground was urged.
4. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondent No.3 as also learned Senior Panel Counsel appearing for respondent No.1 and learned counsel for respondent No.4, this Court does not finds any merit in this petition.
5. According to the petitioner, as respondent No.4 is a retired Government servant and he is drawing pension, therefore, he was barred from being allotted the Petrol Pump, because in terms of Clause 6 of the Brochure (Annexure P-1), any person who was drawing any salary/perks/emoluments from the State/Central Government could not have been allotted the dealership. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that as respondent No.4 was drawing pension, therefore, he was not eligible for the grant of Retail Outlet, as pension amounted to grant of perks/receipt of emoluments by the said respondent from his erstwhile employer.
6. In the considered view of this Court, this objection to the allotment of the Retail Outlet to the petitioner has no merit. Clause 6 of the Brochure reads as under:-
“A person selected for the dealership shall be paying attention towards day to day working of the dealership by personally managing the affairs of the dealership. He/She will not be eligible for taking up any employment. If the selected person is already employed he/she will have to resign from the employment and produce the letter of acceptance of resignation by the employer before the issuance of Letter of Appointment by the Oil Company.
Further at the time of issuance of letter of appointment, the LOI holder will have to give notarized affidavit stating that he/she is not employed in Private Sector or is not drawing any salary/perks/ emoluments from State / Central Government (Appendix - IV). The LOI holder will also affirm that during the tenure of the Dealership he/she will not take up any employment in Private Sector or will not draw any salary/perks/emoluments from State /Central Government.
A Non- Individual applicant (entity) selected for the dealership will have to manage day to day working/affairs of the dealership under control/supervision of their own employee(s) and in line wit
AI
Pension is not considered an emolument or perk, thus does not disqualify a retired government servant from obtaining a dealership.
Misrepresentation in application for dealership leads to cancellation of allotment, emphasizing the importance of full disclosure in public sector dealings.
The court's role in a writ petition is to ensure that the material does not suffer any illegality on the face of it and to consider the findings of the 1st respondent backed by proper reasons.
The court affirmed that eligibility for retail dealership under the guidelines excludes candidates with ongoing legislative roles, emphasizing public interest and operational integrity.
The court upheld the rejection of the representation based on the well-reasoned and speaking order provided by the respondents, considering various factors such as RBI Guidelines, Selection Guideline....
The court ruled that a nominated member's status does not constitute employment, allowing Indian Oil Corporation Limited to require resignation for dealership eligibility, emphasizing fair distributi....
Point of Law : Applications for selection of regular LPG distributorships were invited in April, 2011 by BPCL. One of the eligibility criteria was that the applicant should own a plot of land of adeq....
The criteria for distributorship under the Rajiv Gandhi Gramin LPG Scheme are mandatory, and the rejection of the writ petitioner's application was not arbitrary.
The court established that timely action is crucial in seeking judicial relief under Article 226 of the Constitution, and failure to comply with eligibility requirements can lead to the dismissal 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.