Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA, MANISH KUMAR NIGAM, JJ.
Meena Jaiswal – Appellant
Versus
Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. – Respondent
Writ C No.12304 of 2021
Decided on : 15-09-2023
Rectification Deed - Eligibility Criteria - Guidelines on Selection of Dealers for Regular and Retail Outlets through Draw of Lots/Bidding Process - [RECTIFICATION DEED] - [RETAIL OUTLET DEALERSHIP] - [Section 26 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, Guidelines on Selection of Dealers for Regular and Retail Outlets through Draw of Lots/Bidding Process] - The court discussed the rectification deed and its relation to the eligibility criteria under the Guidelines. It emphasized that the rectification deed did not materially affect the offer of land made at the initial stage and fell under the enabling provisions of the Guidelines. The court held that the respondent-Corporation committed an apparent illegality in rejecting the petitioner's candidature based on the rectification deed obtained after filing the application, as it was permissible under the Guidelines for Group I applicants.
Fact of the Case:
An advertisement was issued by the Indian Oil Corporation Limited inviting applications for appointment of retail outlet dealers. The petitioner submitted an online application for a dealership under the OBC category, offering land that met the specified norms. The dimensions of the offered land were mistakenly recorded in the original lease deed but were later corrected through a rectification deed. The respondent-Corporation rejected the petitioner's candidature based on the original lease deed dimensions, overlooking the rectification deed.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the rectification deed did not materially affect the offer of land made at the initial stage and fell under the enabling provisions of the Guidelines. It held that the respondent-Corporation committed an apparent illegality in rejecting the petitioner's candidature based on the rectification deed obtained after filing the application, as it was permissible under the Guidelines for Group I applicants.
Issues: The main issue was whether the rectification deed relating to the dimensions of the offered land should be considered in assessing the petitioner's eligibility for the dealership.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the rectification deed did not materially affect the offer of land made at the initial stage and fell under the enabling provisions of the Guidelines. It held that the respondent-Corporation committed an apparent illegality in rejecting the petitioner's candidature based on the rectification deed obtained after filing the application, as it was permissible under the Guidelines for Group I applicants.
Final Decision: The court allowed the writ petition, quashed the impugned decision, and directed the respondent-Corporation to proceed further in the matter from the stage of field verification of the petitioner's credentials and take it to its logical conclusion in terms of the Guidelines within a period of six weeks from the date of communication of the instant order. No order as to costs was made.
JUDGMENT :
Manoj Kumar Gupta, J.
FACTS :
1. An advertisement was issued on 25.11.2018, by the Indian Oil Corporation Limited, inviting applications for appointment of retail outlet dealers in various districts of Uttar Pradesh. The dispute in the instant case relates to the retail outlet dealership between Km. Stone 18 to 23 on State Highway (SH) 87, Varanasi, Bhadohi Road (Sl. No. 1023), reserved for OBC Category. The application was to be submitted online on the website www.petrolpumpdealerchayan.in. The last date for submission of the application form along with nonrefundable fee was 24.12.2018.
2. The petitioner submitted online application for the said dealership on 24.12.2018 along with requisite fee under OBC Category.
3. The petitioner offered land of Gata no. 667, Village Gaurai, Pargana Kaswar, Tehsil Raja Talab, District Varanasi, admeasuring 1328.99 sq. meters, located between Km. Stone 18 to 23 on State Highway (SH) 87, Varanasi, Bhadohi Road, as required in terms of the advertisement. The said land was taken by the petitioner on lease from its owner for a period of 19 years 11 months by registered lease deed dated 24.12.2018.
4. As per norms, the minimum dimension of the offered land was to be 35 meters x 35 meters, equivalent to 1225 sq. mts
5. The petitioner in her online application disclosed the dimensions of the offered land as 35 meters x 35 meters. The case of the petitioner is that the dimensions of the land offered was more than the specified norms, i.e. 35.35 meters (116 feet) x 37.56 meters (123.25 feet), but by inadvertence, it came to be mentioned as 33.528 meters (110 feet) x 39.624 meters (130 feet) in the lease deed. As soon as the mistake was discovered, the petitioner got the same corrected through a rectification deed (titimma) dated 29.1.2019 (registered on 1.2.2019).
6. It is the specific case of the petitioner that as a result thereof, there was no change in identity of the demised land. Only the dimensions which were wrongly recorded in the original lease deed were corrected. The boundaries remained the same.
7. The petitioner was selected in the draw of lots and she was intimated by the respondent-Corporation by letter dated 26.9.2019 to deposit Rs. 40,000/-towards initial security deposit and submit all documents for scrutiny.
8. In pursuance of intimation letter, the petitioner submitted the original lease deed dated 24.12.2018 as well as rectification deed dated 29.1.2019/1.2.2019 along with other documents on 17.10.2019.
9. On 23.6.2020, the petitioner received an e-mail from the respondent-Corporation informing her that her candidature had been rejected. The ground for rejection, as mentioned in paragraph 3 of the communication is as follows:
“……………….. lease executed for Gata no. 667 having dimensions of 130 ft x 110 ft which does not meet minimum advertised criterion of 35m x 35m.”
10. The petitioner was informed that her candidature was found ineligible in Group 1 and now she would be considered for selection along with Group 3 applicants as per guidelines.
11. The specific case of the petitioner is that before cancelling her candidature, she was not afforded any opportunity of hearing. The respondents completely overlooked the rectification deed dated 29.1.2019 wherefrom it was evident that there was mistake in the dimensions of the demised land in the original lease deed and the same was corrected subsequently and much before the respondents required the petitioner to submit the documents for verification. Consequently, the petitioner made a representation on 26.6.2020 giving complete facts. When no heed was paid to the same, she filed Writ Petition No. 12745 of 2020. It was allowed by order dated 8.9.2020 and the order of the respondent-Corporation dated 26.3.2020 was quashed. The respondent-Corporation was directed to pass a fresh reasoned and speaking order after affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.
12. One of the findings recorded by this Court in the previous judgment is as
AI
The rectification deed did not materially affect the offer of land made at the initial stage and fell under the enabling provisions of the Guidelines. The court emphasized that the rectification deed....
A typographical error in a lease deed does not disqualify an applicant for a dealership if rectified before the application deadline, as it relates back to the original deed.
The court upheld the rejection of the petitioner's application for a retail outlet dealership due to failure to meet land suitability criteria as per the Brochure guidelines.
Procedural errors in document uploads, such as submitting an incorrect page of a lease deed, are curable defects. When original documents satisfy substantive eligibility criteria, authorities must ac....
LPG distributorship - Declaration that the applicant had never been convicted for any charge; no charge had been framed by any Court of law for any criminal offences involving moral turpitude or an e....
The conformity letter from an advocate plays a crucial role in determining the eligibility of the offered land and the applicant's title to it, and the rejection based solely on the conformity letter....
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
