IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
K.R. MOHAPATRA, J.
Sandeepta Samantaray - Petitioner
Versus
Indian Oil Corporation (MD), Bhubaneswar - Opp. Parties
W.P.(C). No.21814 of 2016
Decided on : 12-07-2024
JUDGMENT :
K.R. MOHAPATRA, J.
1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.
2. Petitioner in this writ petition seeks to assail Letter dated 26th March, 2015 (Annexure-2) issued by the Indian Oil Corporation (for brevity hereinafter referred to as ‘IOCL’) rejecting the candidature of the Petitioner for LPG Distributorship at location “Cuttack-Ranihat”, District Cuttack, Odisha under ‘O’ category. Petitioner also assails letter dated 17th September, 2016 (Annexure-6) rejecting her grievance petition. Petitioner further seeks for a direction to award the LPG Distributorship in her favour at the aforesaid location.
3. Mr. Nayak, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that pursuant to the Advertisement made for LPG Distributorship at the aforesaid location, Petitioner along with other candidates submitted their candidatures by filling up the Form prescribed. They also submitted requisite documents and information in the application. On scrutiny of the applications submitted, only the Petitioner was found eligible for award of the aforesaid LPG Distributorship. On verification of the application along with documents submitted, the Petitioner was selected for award of the aforesaid LPG Distributorship and was communicated vide Letter dated 6th October, 2014 (Annexure-1). Petitioner was also asked to deposit a sum of Rs.50,000/- for Field Verification of Credentials (for brevity hereinafter referred to as ‘FVC’) for appointment of the LPG Distributor. But, most unfortunately, when the Petitioner was making preparation for opening the LPG Distributorship, she was communicated with Letter dated 26th March, 2015(Annexure-2) rejecting her candidature on the ground that the fixed deposit No. F510285 of Rs.5.00 lakhs was in the name of Sri Sriharsha Dalai and Sri Ramachandra Dalai jointly out of whom, though Sri Sriharsha Dalai is the husband of the Petitioner, but, Ramachadra Dalai is her father-in-law, who is not a member of the Family Unit.
3.1 It is submitted that the candidature of the Petitioner could not have been rejected on the aforesaid flimsy ground. When on scrutiny of the application of the Petitioner along with documents submitted, IOCL found those to be in order and selected her for award of the Distributorship, they are estopped to reject her candidature on the aforesaid ground. Since the Petitioner has been selected for award of the LPG Distributorship, it is deemed that deficiency, if any, in the application along with documents filed, more particularly the in the fixed deposit receipt as referred to above, has been waived.
3.2 He further submits that if there was any defect in the application, the Petitioner should have been communicated with the discrepancies/deficiencies in view of Clause-8.5 of the Brochure for selection of LPG Distributorship (for brevity ‘the Brochure’), which reads as under:
“8.5. Procedure For Receipt of Application Application would be received in sealed envelope only. After application is received, serial number would be put on the envelope and also recorded in a Register Acknowledgement for applications received will be sent to the applicants.
In case deficiencies are found in the application, a letter would be sent to the applicant to rectify the deficiencies within a specified period of time.”
4. Thus, the Petitioner should have been intimated about the deficiencies, if any, in her application to rectify the same. But, no communication whatsoever was issued to the Petitioner at any point of time stating the deficiencies, if any, in her application save and except the impugned order under Annexure-2 rejecting her candidature. Learned counsel for the Petitioner also drew attention of this Court to Clause-10(c) of the Brochure, which is an under:
“c. If in the FVC it is found that information given in the application is at variance with the original documents and that information affects the eligibility of the candidate, then a letter would be sent by Registered Post AD/Speed Post pointing out the d
The rejection of an LPG distributorship candidature based on discrepancies identified during the Field Verification of Credentials is valid, and principles of natural justice are not violated if the ....
The rejection of an LPG distributorship application is valid if eligibility criteria related to land ownership, as per selection guidelines, are not met, and principles of natural justice are not vio....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the significance of meeting the eligibility criteria, particularly the requirement of ownership or registered lease deed for the plot of land offer....
The court established that compliance with specific eligibility criteria, including land ownership and dimensions, is essential for the approval of LPG distributorship applications, and that subseque....
The applicant must fulfill the eligibility criteria at the time of application, and decisions regarding forfeiture must be justified and not arbitrary.
Judicial review is justified when administrative decisions lack transparency and fairness in adherence to established procedural guidelines.
Adherence to specified eligibility criteria, particularly the requirement of a registered lease deed for the plot of land offered for LPG distributorship, is crucial for consideration of candidature.
Misrepresentation in eligibility criteria leads to rejection of candidacy for distributorship.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.