Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Ramesh Sinha, Ajit Kumar, JJ.
Ansar Ali - Petitioner
Vs.
Union of India And Others - Respondents
Writ - C No. - 24484 of 2019 Connected with WRIT - C No. – 26050, 24673, 25920, 24640, 24580 of 2019
Decided On : 13-08-2019
Constitution of India – Article 14 – Petitions against order passed by authority of Petroleum Corporation holding their candidature to be ineligible after field verification of land and placing their candidature in category/ Group-3 which according to guidelines are to considered subject to condition that other competing candidates not qualify in first two categories called Group 1 and Group 2 – Basic grievance raised by petitioners is that order impugned by which their candidature come to rejected in first two categories holding them ineligible, is absolutely non-speaking and cryptic order as ground assigned is Land Evaluation Committee visited site and found same not meet required norms – Held, Orders passed by authorities in respective petitions not only non speaking unreasoned and cryptic one but also cannot otherwise pass test of Article 14 of Constitution – While rule of personal hearing not compulsory rule in every case but rule of assigning reason while passing order on basis of some adverse report is mandatory for authority to make order legally enforceable – Only ground taken for passing order is that offer of land made by respective petitioners not meet requirement as per brochure – Therefore, it will be open for respondent to revisit matter from that angle only and, if otherwise, after due evaluation and meeting objection of petitioner found suitable, their candidature on other norms not cancelled on any fresh ground – Petitions allowed. (Paras: 34 to 39)
Facts of the case:
Petitions against order passed by authority of Petroleum Corporation holding their candidature to be ineligible after field verification of land and placing their candidature in category/ Group-3 which according to guidelines are to considered subject to condition that other competing candidates not qualify in first two categories called Group 1 and Group 2 – Basic grievance raised by petitioners is that order impugned by which their candidature come to rejected in first two categories holding them ineligible, is absolutely non-speaking and cryptic order as ground assigned is Land Evaluation Committee visited site and found same not meet required norms.
Findings of the court:
Orders passed by authorities in respective petitions not only non speaking unreasoned and cryptic one but also cannot otherwise pass test of Article 14 of Constitution – While rule of personal hearing not compulsory rule in every case but rule of assigning reason while passing order on basis of some adverse report is mandatory for authority to make order legally enforceable – Only ground taken for passing order is that offer of land made by respective petitioners not meet requirement as per brochure – Therefore, it will be open for respondent to revisit matter from that angle only and, if otherwise, after due evaluation and meeting objection of petitioner found suitable, their candidature on other norms not cancelled on any fresh ground.
Result: Petitions allowed
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard Sri Ravi Kant, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Tarun Agarwal, learned Advocate, Sri A.K.Tiwari, Sri Santosh Dwivedi, Sri S.K.Sharma, Sri Dharmendra Singh and Sri Ashish Malhotra, learned counsels for the petitioners and Sri Vikas Budhwar, learned Advocate for the respondent Corporation and learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Union of India.
2. All these petitions since raise common question of law, have been clubbed together and are being heard and decided by this common judgment and order.
3. All the petitioners in their respective petitions have raised grievance against the order passed by the authority of Petroleum Corporation holding their candidature to be ineligible after field verification of the land and placing their candidature in category/ Group-3 which according to the guidelines are to be considered subject to condition that the other competing candidates do not qualify in first two categories called Group 1 and Group 2.
4. The basic grievance raised by the petitioners is that the order impugned by which their candidature has come to be rejected in the first two categories holding them ineligible, is absolutely non-speaking and cryptic order as ground assigned is Land Evaluation Committee visited the site and found the same not meet the required norms.
5. According to learned Advocates appearing on behalf of the petitioners passing of such an order having adverse consequences upon the interest and rights of the petitioners as competing contender, is arbitrary and hit by Article 14 of the Constitution. It is also argued that even within the legitimate sphere of authority taking administrative decision, the decision must reflect consideration of claims on merits. In a nutshell, the action of the respondent is sought to be judicially reviewed on the ground of lack of just and fair play at the end of the authorities while evaluating the candidature of the petitioners in connection with respective advertisements for allotment of retail outlet dealership by oil companies.
6. Before we proceed to examine the legality of the action assailed in this bunch of writ petitions, it is necessary to refer to the facts of the case in order to appreciate the controversy on facts. Since in all the writ petitions, more or less facts are identical, for convenience we are referring to the facts as detailed out in Writ Petition No. 24484 of 2019 filed by one Ansar Ali. We have further reasons to refer to the facts of this case because learned counsel for the respondents Sri Budhwar has placed instructions obtained by him in respect of this case only.
7. Respondent Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. (for short “Petroleum Corporation”) issued an advertisement on 25.11.2018 inviting online applications for retail outlet dealership at a site between Kilometer Stone 26 and 29 at Meerut-Shamli Raod , National Highway 709A (Old SH-82) in district Meerut in the open category. Last date for submission of form was 24th December, 2018.
8. Out of three locations for which applications were invited under the above advertisement, the petitioner made an application for the site at serial no. 1538 of the advertisement for which selection was to be done by way of draw of lots and the total area of the land required was 1575 square meters with a frontage of 35 metres wide and depth of 45 meters. While petitioner applied online by way of online submission of application, the petitioner offered plot no. 1117 situate at village Baparasi, Pargana, Tehsil and District Meerut with area of 1575 square meters and with 35 meters and with a 35 meters wide frontage and 45 meters in depth as the said land fell on the location for which advertisement was made.
9. The land offered by the petitioner was obtained by him on the basis of a registered lease deed for a period of 20 years executed by original tenure holder, Kartar Singh on 24.12.2018 itself, copy whereof has been filed as Annexure 3 to the writ petition.
10. In the draw of lots tha
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
