Corporation's rejection of LPG distributorship candidature upheld where field verification and commission report show plot accessible only by light vehicles, not heavy transport required for cylinders; no judicial interference absent arbitrariness.

JUDGMENT :

JIYA LAL BHARDWAJ, J.

The appellant has filed the present appeal against judgment dated 07.10.2016, passed by the learned Single Judge in CWP No. 9773 of 2011, titled Jyoti Thakur vs. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. & Ors., vide which the writ petition preferred by the writ petitioner/ respondent No. 1 herein (for short “writ petitioner”), hereinafter referred as writ petitioner has been allowed; and order dated 28.10.2011 (Annexure P-5), passed by respondent No.2- Corporation(Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.), hereinafter referred as Corporation, was quashed and set aside and the Corporation was directed to consider the case of the writ petitioner, for allotment of Rajiv Gandhi Gramin LPG Vitrak at Parwara, District Mandi, H.P., on Khasra No. 994.

2. The appellant was not a party in the Writ petition, but since she had applied for allotment of gas agency in question vide application dated 03.11.2016, preferred the present appeal along with an application seeking leave to appeal. This Court vide order dated 03.01.2017, was pleased to allow the application seeking leave to appeal by holding that the appellant is aggrieved party and prima facie appears to have been affected by the impugned judgment.

3. The writ petitioner had laid challenge to the rejection order dated 28.10.2011, whereby the Corporation had been pleased to cancel her candidature for award of Rajiv Gandhi Gramin LPG Vitrak (hereinafter referred as ‘RGGLV’) at Parwara, District Mandi, H.P., on the ground that the first plot comprised in Khasra No. 1005 offered by her, was not found suitable for the construction of godown as the same is less than the minimum required dimensions of 20 x 24 meters; the second plot comprised in Khasra No. 994 was also not found suitable for the construction of godown as the same is not approachable, because it is covered on all sides by the land owned by others; and the third plot bearing Khasra No. 1003, offered by the writ petitioner was not found owned by her or by any other members of the family unit as given in multi distributorship norms.

4. The facts which are necessary for adjudication of the issue in the present appeal as emerged from the perusal of the writ petition are that the Corporation had issued an advertisement on 11.10.2010, inviting applications for award of Rajiv Gandhi Gramin LPG Vitrak at Parwara, District Mandi, H.P. The writ petitioner in pursuance of the advertisement issued by the Corporation applied on prescribed format. From the writ record, it is clear that vide communication dated 06.06.2011, the writ petitioner was requested to be present along with photo identity card issued by any government department for draw of lots at 10.00 AM on 01.07.2011, since she had fulfilled the criteria postulated in the brochure and had secured minimum qualifying marks i.e. 80.

5. The writ petitioner was selected in the draw of lots. However, before issuing the letter of intent, field verification was to be carried out as required under the brochure. The relevant criteria as postulated in brochure for selection is reproduced hereunder:

“12. Selection Process

12.1. A Committee consisting of two Officers of the concerned Oil Company will do scrutiny of the application and award marks to the applicants based on the information given in the application

12.2. Selection will be done by draw of lot out of all eligible applicants securing minimum qualifying marks. Minimum qualifying marks is 60% for locations reserved under SC/ST category and minimum 80%