Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2021 Supreme(Mad) 831

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
T.S. SIVAGNANAM, S. ANANTHI, JJ.
The Divisional Manager, Indian Oil Corporation Limited, Madurai Divisional Office, Madurai – Appellant
Versus
M. Arunkumar & Another – Respondent
W.A. (MD) No. 1193 of 2020 & C.M.P (MD).No. 6499 of 2020
Decided On : 19-04-2021

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :K. Muraleedharan, Advocate.
For the Respondents:Isaac Mohanlal, Senior Counsel, H. Thayumanasamy, Advocate.

Point of Law:Tender – Rejection justified - writ petitioner did not posses any land under valid registered documents at the time of his application

Headnote:
Constitution of India,1950 - Article 226 - Lease deed - Registered Gift deed -Respondents/Corporation issued tender notification inviting applications from eligible candidates for appointment of retail outlet dealers at various locations in State of Tamilnadu and Union Territory of Pondicherry - Petitioner submitted his application in response to the said notification - Petitioner wanted his case to be considered under is known as Group-I category respondents conducted a local inspection impugned order - application was rejected on the ground applicant was not in possession of required land as on date of application –
Finding of the Court:
Writ petitioner did not posses any land under valid registered documents at the time of his application - Appellant/1st respondent has rightly rejected petitioner's application - Learned Single Judge of Court allowed writ petition on ground that the writ petitioner was in possession on application and brochure permits lease arrangement also - Extent for eligible criteria was not on ground –
Result: Writ appeal is allowed

JUDGMENT :

S. ANANTHI, J

(Prayer: Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, against the order dated 19.08.2020, passed in W.P.(MD) No. 8032 of 2020.)

1. This appeal by the 2nd respondent, is filed against the order dated 19.08.2020, in W.P.(MD)No.8032 of 2020 filed by the 1st respondent/petitioner herein.

2. The 1st respondent had filed W.P.(MD) No.8032 of 2020 under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenging the impugned order passed by the 2nd respondent vide Ref.15447854825273, dated 17.01.2020 and sought further direction to process forthwith the petitioner's application in Ref.15447854825273, dated 14.12.2018.

3. The respondents/Corporation issued tender notification dated 25.11.2018 inviting applications from eligible candidates for appointment of retail outlet dealers at various locations in the State of Tamilnadu and Union Territory of Pondicherry. The case on hand pertains to the location at Melakrishnaputhoor, Kanyakumari District. The petitioner submitted his application dated 14.12.2018 in response to the said notification. The petitioner wanted his case to be considered under what is known as Group-I category. The respondents conducted a local inspection on 23.12.2019. Thereafter, the impugned order, dated 17.01.2020 was issued and the petitioner was informed that his candidature under Group-I was found ineligible and that he would be considered for selection along with Group- III applicants as per the guidelines. This communication is put to challenge in this writ petition. The petitioner's application was rejected on the ground that the applicant was not in possession of required land as on date of application.

4. The 1st respondent/writ petitioner had contended that his case is to be considered as Group-I category in the brochure. As per Clause 4(v) of the brochure, the applicant would be classified into three groups as mentioned below based on the land offered or land not offered by them to the application form and Group-I applicants having suitable place of land in the advertised location/area either by way of ownership/long term lease for a period of minimum 19 years 11 months or as advertised by the OMC.

5. The land required for the project was 30m/30m. The 1st respondent/writ petitioner had submitted his application, dated 14.12.2018 as in Group-I category along with lease deed dated 10.12.2018 for 20 years. When a lease deed executed for more than 11 months it must be compulsorily registered. But the above deed is not registered. Further, he shown the extent as 48m/30m in the application. He relied only the lease agreement in his application.

6. As per brochure note 1(a), 'Own' means having ownership by way of Registered Sale deed, Registered Gift deed, etc. or title of the property or registered long lease (as per individual OMC norms) in the name of applicant/family member/s as defined in 4(v)-e.

7. The writ petitioner had filed only lease deed along with his application that too unregistered. The appellant had inspected the property on 23.12.2019 and found that the site was not upto the eligibility criteria fixed for the project.

8. Further, the writ petitioner had filed one sale agreement dated 26.11.2018 which was alleged to be prior to application. But, the sale agreement was not annexed with the petitioner's application. The sale agreement also not registered. The same was executed on 15.11.2019 only after filing the application. Therefore, on the date of application, the writ petitioner did not possess the required land under any valid documents.

9. The relevant portion of the Judgment, dated 22.04.2019 in W.A. No. 1277 of 2019 passed by the Division Bench of this Court, is extracted hereunder:

“ ..........

13. The respondent is deemed to be fully aware of the terms and conditions. Despite that being the position, while submitting his application in column No.5, he had given the date of lease deed as 23.04.2018 along with the document number. Column 5 of the application clearly states that the l

Click Here to Read the rest of this document