2021 Supreme(Mad) 752

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
ABDUL QUDDHOSE, J.
Ganapathiraman Srinivasan – Appellant
Versus
M/s. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd, Rep. by AE. Sivakumar, Salem – Respondent
W.P. No. 12468 of 2020 & WMP. Nos. 15387 & 15388 of 2020
Decided On : 23-03-2021

Point of law: only in accordance with the terms and conditions which makes it mandatory for submission of Appendix-III A and Appendix-III B along with the application, the respondent Oil Corporation has passed the impugned order rejecting the petitioner's candidature.

Headnote:

Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 226 – Issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus – Allotment of a retail petroleum outlet – Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for the issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the impugned order in Ref. and its consequential letter in Ref.SLMDO/SRMP passed by the respondent herein and quash the same, consequently direct the respondent to award the Retail Outlet Dealership in the name of the petitioner for the advertised location at Uthangarai Town & Periphery Krishnagiri District as per the selection mode forthwith – Writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 06.07.2020 passed by the respondent Oil Corporation rejecting the petitioner's candidature for allotment of a retail petroleum outlet for the advertised location at Uthangarai Town & Periphery (Town limits and 2KMS beyond Town limits), Krishnagiri District. – Petitioner had applied for a retail petroleum outlet with the respondent Oil Corporation and he was provisionally selected in the draw of lots conducted by the respondent Oil Corporation subject to the fulfillment of the terms and conditions of the tender. – However, the respondent oil corporation under the impugned order rejected the petitioner's candidature on the ground that Appendix-III A and Appendix-III B are dated after the application date. – whether the non-submission of the consent affidavit from the family member (brother) of the petitioner (Appendix-III A) who has offered to give his land to the petitioner at the time of submission of the application by the petitioner; and whether the non-submission of the confirmatory letter from an Advocate (Appendix-III B) pertaining to the offered land at the time of submission of the application; are fatal to the petitioner's candidature for the petroleum retail outlet.

Finding of court: Court is of the considered view that the respondent Oil Corporation considering the mandatory nature of the documents has rightly rejected the petitioner's candidature on the ground that he has not submitted Appendix-III A and Appendix-III B on the date of the application but submitted the same only after the date of the application. – Affidavit mentioned in the brochure for selection of dealers for petroleum outlets relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner deals with Appendix 10- A (for individual) and Appendix 10-B (for non-individual) and does not deal with Appendix-III A and Appendix-III B. – Contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that non-submission of Appendix-III A and Appendix-III B is curable cannot be accepted by this Court as the said documents are mandatory in view of the aforementioned reasons. – Brochure for selection of dealers for regular and retail outlets also makes it clear that the land should be available with the applicant as on the date of the application and should have minimum lease of 19 years and 11 months (as advertised by the respondent Oil Corporation) from the date or after the date of advertisement but not later than the date of application. – In the case on hand, the land offered by the petitioner for the petroleum retail outlet is not his own land but his brother's land. – Admittedly, Appendix-III A and Appendix-III B were not submitted by the petitioner on the date of application. – Unless and until, the respondent Oil Corporation is satisfied and convinced about the land availability on the date of the application, they cannot award the contract to the petitioner as land is the essential requirement for allotment of any retail petroleum outlet. – In the case on hand, since the petitioner's brother's property was offered and the respondent Oil Corporation was not in possession of the consent affidavit from the petitioner's brother on the date of the application, they have rightly rejected the petitioner's candidature under the impugned order. – Petitioner cannot use the writ jurisdiction to make a fresh bargain with the respondent. – The principles laid down in the decision relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondent in the case of Vidarbha Irrigation Development Corporation vs. Anoj Kumar Agarwala reported in MANU/SC/0078/2019 that (a) writ jurisdiction cannot be utilised to make a fresh bargain between the parties and (b) an essential tender condition which ought to be strictly complied with cannot be condoned, will apply to the facts of this case also. – Court is of the considered view that there is no merit in this case.

Result: Writ Petition Dismissed