Back
In The High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh at Jammu
Rajnesh Oswal, J.
Ravi Kiran Sharma – Appellant
Versus
Union of India and Others – Respondent
WP (C) No.161/2022(O&M)
Decided on : 6-7-2022
Government Contract – Allotment of Petroleum Retail Outlet Dealership – Rejection of candidature – Land offered by petitioner in application form did not correspond to existing portion on spot – Once land offered by petitioner was not in consonance with requirements as mentioned in advertisement, respondent No. 3 has rightly rejected candidature of petitioner – It is not that OMC’s cannot demand area more than minimum specifications laid down in guidelines – Also advertisement prescribed dimensions of land as 35 meters x 45 meters – Petitioner has no right for consideration on the basis of minimum size as prescribed by MORTH guidelines of 2020 – There is no illegality or arbitrariness on part of respondent Nos. 2 and 3 in rejecting candidature of petitioner for allotment of retail outlet/fuel station – Petitioner has not challenged provisional access permission – This Court while exercising powers under Article 226 of Constitution of India cannot sit as appellate court over decision of NHAI more particularly when same has not been challenged – Writ Petition dismissed. (Paras 17, 18, 21, 22, 23 and 24)
Result – Writ Petition dismissed.
Judgment :
The petitioner and respondent No. 5, pursuant to the advertisement dated 25.11.2018 issued by the respondent No. 2, applied for allotment of MS/HSD retail outlet dealership at location within one kilometre on either side of Taryara on Jammu-Pathankot National Highway-44 at District Kathua. The candidature of the petitioner was rejected vide communication dated 11.07.2019 and the letter of intent (LOI) dated 20.11.2020 was issued in favour of respondent No. 5 by respondent No. 3.
2. The petitioner through the medium of present writ petition filed on 01.02.2022 has prayed for quashing of communication dated 11.07.2019 and LOI dated 20.11.2020 and has also made prayer for commanding the respondents 2 and 3 to allot MS/HSD retail outlet for abovementioned location in favour of the petitioner and further restraining the respondent Nos. 2 & 3 from permitting the respondent No. 5 to proceed ahead with the establishment of MS/HSD retail outlet pursuant to the impugned LOI.
3. It is stated that as per clause-4 of the eligibility criteria, the applicants are classified into three groups based on the land offered or land not offered by them. Group-I constitutes applicants having a suitable piece of land in the advertised locations/area either by way of ownership/long term lease for 19 years and 11 months or as advertised by OMC. Group-II constitutes of applicants having a firm offer for a suitable piece of land for purchase or long term lease for a period of minimum 19 years 11 months or as advertised by OMC. Group-III constitutes of applicants, who have not offered land in application. Applicants under Group-III can be considered/processed only if no eligible candidate is found or no applicant gets selected under Group-I or II. The petitioner claiming himself to be eligible submitted his application on the web portal of respondent Nos. 2 and 3. The petitioner offered a land measuring 4 kanals 3 marlas comprising khasra No. 177/57 situated at village Taryara on the left side of Jammu-Pathankot NH-44, owned by the parents of the petitioner. The site plan has also been placed on record.
4. The respondent No. 3 after receipt of application forms, opened the bids on 06.02.2019 at the office of Deputy Commissioner, Jammu. The petitioner had submitted his bid at Rs. 32 lacs and the petitioner was declared as selected vide letter dated 07.02.2019. However, the award of dealership was subject to compliance of terms and conditions of respondent No. 2. In due deference to email dated 07.02.2019, the petitioner deposited a sum of Rs. 50,000/- as initial security deposit and also deposited the requisite documents. The petitioner was also informed that Land Evaluation Committee would visit the site on 20.05.2019. Site visit was conducted and thereafter vide communication dated 11.07.2019, the petitioner was informed that site offered by the petitioner was not meeting the required norms and his candidature would be considered for selection along with Group-III applicants as per the guidelines. Later on, the petitioner came to know that the LOI dated 20.11.2020 for the location mentioned above has been issued in favour of respondent No. 5 notwithstanding the fact that land of respondent No. 5 too does not conform to the criteria.
5. The petitioner has impugned communication dated 11.07.2019 and LOI dated 20.11.2020 on the following grounds:—
(b) That the land offered by the petitioner is better located as compared to the land offered by respondent No. 5. The land offered by the respondent No. 5 does not conform to the guidelines issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Road, Transport and Highways (MoRTH), New Delhi. It is also sta
: High Court while exercising powers under Article 226 of Constitution of India cannot sit as appellate court over decision of NHAI more particularly when same has not been challenged.
Participant in retail outlet selection via draw of lots has locus to challenge rival's site NOCs for guideline non-conformity, unlike business rivals; IRC/MoRTH guidelines non-mandatory on major dist....
The court held that a retailer's eligibility requirements must align with government guidelines, declaring a 35-meter frontage requirement illegal and invalidating the selection based on this non-com....
The court affirmed that applicants must be provided an opportunity to rectify deficiencies in their land documentation before rejection of their dealership applications, emphasizing the principles of....
Civil Law - Grant of Temporary Injunction - Rights and Liabilities of Co-owners - A co-owner is not entitled to an injunction restraining another co-owner from exceeding his rights in common property....
The rejection of a Scheduled Tribe applicant's candidature for a Retail Outlet Dealership was quashed due to failure to provide the mandated extension period for document submission, emphasizing fair....
Eligibility criteria for dealership require land to be free of high tension electricity lines; non-compliance with guidelines results in automatic disqualification without rectification opportunity.
The court established that IRC Guidelines are directory and do not confer a legal right to challenge the issuance of a Letter of Intent based on proximity.
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
