Back
2017 Supreme(Mad) 3071
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
K. RAVICHANDRABAABU, J.
T. Valli – Appellant
Versus
The General Manager, Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. & Others – Respondent
W.P. No. 11067 of 2017 & W.M.P. No. 12011 of 2017
Decided On : 17-11-2017
For the Petitioner:AR.L. Sundaresan, Senior Counsel for M/s. Thanga Vadhana Balakrishnan, Advocate.
For the Respondents: Abdul Salem, Standing Counsel.
The intention of the parties to a document should be ascertained by considering all the words in their ordinary natural sense and reading the document as a whole.
Headnote:
lease deed - dealership selection - 2012(5) CTC 577 - The court considered the lease deed submitted by the petitioner and its recitals to determine the intention of the parties regarding sub-leasing the property to the respondent Corporation. The court found that the lease deed contained specific clauses permitting sub-leasing to the respondent Corporation, and the subsequent notarized affidavit further clarified the lessors' intention. The court held that the cancellation of the petitioner's candidature was unjustified and directed the respondents to award the dealership to the petitioner.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought a direction to consider her representation and rectify the fault in the lease deed for a dealership selection. The respondents rejected the petitioner's representation and canceled her selection due to the absence of a sub-lease clause in the lease deed.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the lease deed and subsequent notarized affidavit clearly indicated the lessors' consent for sub-leasing the property to the respondent Corporation, and the cancellation of the petitioner's candidature was unjustified.
Issues: Cancellation of dealership selection based on absence of sub-lease clause in the lease deed.
Ratio Decidendi: The lease deed and subsequent notarized affidavit indicated the lessors' consent for sub-leasing the property to the respondent Corporation, justifying the award of dealership to the petitioner.
Final Decision: The court allowed the writ petition, set aside the impugned order, and directed the respondents to award the dealership to the petitioner within four weeks.
1. The petitioner is aggrieved against the notification issued by the 3rd respondent dated 06.04.2017 and consequently seeking for a direction to the respondents 1 to 3 to consider her written representation dated 12.04.2017 and grant a chance to rectify the fault in the lease deed dated 31.10.2014 under Document No.4719/2014.
2. The case of the petitioner is as follows:
The respondents Company invited an application for awarding Indian Oil Corporation Retail Outlet dealership, through newspaper advertisement at various locations. The petitioner was interested in applying for the same at Harur to Theerthamalai Road (Mambadi) locating and thus, entered into a lease deed with the owners of the property in respect of a vacant land in S.No.38/1A2 of Mambadi Village measuring an extent of 25.25 sq.mts., on 31.10.2014 and got the same registered as Document No.4719/14 on the file of Sub-Registrar at Harur. Only after execution of the above lease deed, it was noticed that the land should be sub-leased to the respondent Company whereas the lease deed contained a clause that the petitioner should not sub-let the property to anybody. Hence, the petitioner approached the Registering Authority for the purpose of rectifying the lease deed, however, she was informed that the limitation for doing the same was already over. Therefore, the petitioner's lessors executed a notorised affidavit dated 15.11.2014 in favour of the petitioner that they were willing to sub-let the property to the respondents company. Accordingly, the petitioner filed the application on 18.11.2014 for KSK RO dealership of the respondent company along with prescribed fee and all necessary documents. The 3rd respondent, sent a letter on 17.08.2016 stating that the petitioner's application was accepted and the evaluation committee would be visiting the site for inspection on 07.09.2016. Accordingly, the Inspection was conducted on 07.09.2016. The petitioner received a letter from the 3rd respondent dated 11.10.2016 stating that her application has been qualified for draw of lot and that she should be personally present on 02.11.2016 at the 3rd respondent office. The petitioner participated in the draw of lots conducted on 02.11.2016, wherein she was selected for the retail outlet dealership and she was also issued with declaration of results on the same day. Thereafter, the lessors of the petitioner namely, the owners of the property came forward to sell the property to the petitioner herself which the petitioner readily agreed. Hence, she addressed the 3rd respondent on 08.03.2017 seeking permission to purchase the land and then lease out the same to the respondent company. When the petitioner was awaiting the assent of the respondent company, she was issued with the impugned communication stating that her selection has been cancelled as it was observed by the Field Verification Committee that the sub-lease clause was not available in the lease deed submitted by the petitioner along with her application. The petitioner was also given 10 days time to make a representation, in case; she had any grievance on her cancellation. Accordingly, the petitioner sent a representation to the respondents 1 to 3 on 12.04.2017 but she did not receive any feed back. Therefore, the present writ petition is filed before this Court.
3. The respondent filed a common counter wherein it is stated as follows:
The writ petition is not maintainable. The representation of the petitioner dated 06.04.2017 has been considered and rejected by the respondent Corporation on 09.05.2017. As per the broacher for selection, a candidate applying for dealership has to comply with the prime condition, i.e., offer a suitable land in his name or under long term lease or a firm offer for a land for purchase or a firm offer for long term lease and the same should be on the date of the affidavit filed in support of the application. In case of selection under SC/ST category, the Corporation provides Corpus Fund
