Back
2016 Supreme(MP) 546
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Rohit Arya, J.
Rani Soni (Smt.) v. Indian Oil Corporation and others
Writ Petitions No.9245 of 2012 and 1857 of 2015 (Gwalior);
Decided on 29.9.2016.
Prashant Sharma for petitioner in Writ Petition No.9245 of 2012;
Arun Katare for petitioner in Writ Petition No.1857 of 2015 and for respondent No.3 in Writ Petition No.9245 of 2015;
A.K. Jain for respondents No.1 and 2 in Writ Petition No.9245 of 2015 and respondents in Writ Petition No.1857 of 2015.
Headnote:Constitution of India -- Art.226/227 -- capability to provide land and infrastructure for award of retail outlet (petrol pump) dealership -- letter of intent issued by IOL in favour of respondent No.3 -- challenged -- revised guidelines contained in brochure dated 2.9.2011 issued by IOC are in vogue at time of consideration of candidature for installation of petrol pump -- it clinches issue involved in this case -- land offered by respondent No.3 is of joint ownership which fall in category of "owned land" for reason that his brother has no objection for installation of petrol pump -- marks awarded to respondent No.3, 35 out of 35 cannot faulted with -- authorities of IOC shall be at liberty to proved in matter in accordance with law -- petition dismissed.
Held : In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, in the opinion of this Court the marks 35 out of 35 awarded to the respondent No.3 under the head ‘capability to provide the Land and infrastructure by L.I. Committee cannot be faulted with. Further, as LOI has already been prepared and issued in favour of respondent No.3 on 3.2.2014 (pages No.23A to 23B of the paper book), the authorities of the IOC shall be at liberty to proceed in the matter, in accordance with law. Writ Petition No.8699 of 2011 decided on 21.8.2012 and (2014)4 MPLJ 668 referred to.
Hkkjr dk lafo/kku && vuq-226@227 && [kqnjk fudkl ¼isVªksy iai½ O;ogkjh vf/kfu.khZr djus ds fy, Hkwfe rFkk volajpuk dh O;oLFkk djus dh {kerk && Hkkjrh; rsy fuxe }kjk izR;FkhZ Ø-3 ds fgr esa vk'k; i= tkjh && vk{ksfir && vkb vks lh }kjk tkjh foojf.kdk fnukafdr 2-9-2011 esa vrafoZ"V iqujhf{kr ekxZn'kZd fl)kar isVªksy iap ds laLFkkiu ds fy, vH;fFkZrk ij fopkj djrs le; izpyu esa && ;g bl ekeys esa varxzZLr fook|d dks Nkik yxkrk gS && fd izR;FkhZ Ø-3 }kjk izLrkfor Hkwfe la;qDr LokfeRo dh gS tks bl dkj.k ^^LokfeRo dh Hkwfe&& dh Js.kh esa vkrh gS fd mldk HkkbZ isVªksy iai ds laLFkkiu esa dksbZ vkifŸk ugha j[krk gS && izR;FkhZ Ø-3 dks vf/kfu.khZr 35 ess ls 35 vad esa dksbZ =qfV ugha && vkb vks lh ds izkf/kdkjh ekeys esa fof/k vuqlkj dk;Zokgh djus dks Lora= gksaxs && ;kfpdk [kkfjtA
vfHkfu/kkZfjr % ekeys ds iwoZdfFkr rF;ksa rFkk ifjfLFkfr;ksa dks ns[krs gq,] bl U;k;ky; dh jke es] izR;FkhZ Ø-3 dks ,y vkb lfefr }kjk 'kh"kZ ^^Hkwfe rFkk volajpuk dh O;oLFkk djkus^^ ds v/khu] vf/kfu.khZr 35 esa ls 35 vad esa dksbZ =qfV ugha gks ldrhA vkxs pwaWfd vk'k;&i= igys gh rS;kj gks pqdk rFkk 3-2-2014 dks izR;FkhZ Ø-3 ds fgr esa tkjh fd;k x;kA vkb vks lh dks ekeys esa fof/k vuqlkj dk;Zokgh djus dh Lora=rk gksxhA fjV ;kfpdk Ø-8699 lu~ 2011 fu.khZr 20-8-2012 rFkk 2014 ¼1½ ,e ih ,y ts 668 fufnZ"VA
1. Regard being had to the similitude of the controversy involved in Writ Petitions No.9245/2012 and 1857/2015, they have been heard analogously and disposed of by this singular order.
(I) Writ Petition No.9245 of 2012 :
This writ petition, under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, is at the instance of one of the applicants for award of retail outlet (petrol pump) dealership at Village Ishwari on the National Highway 3 (Agra – Mumbai), Tahsil Badarwas, District Shivpuri, seeking indulgence in the matter of marks awarded to the respondent No.3, i.e., 35 out of 35 by L.I. Committee, in relation to the capability to provide the land and infrastructure by him. Later on, petitioner amended the writ petition whereby Letter of Intent dated 03/02/2014 (pages No.23A to 23B of the paper book)issued by Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.(for short “IOC”) in favour of respondent No.3 has been challenged.
(II) Writ Petition No.1857 of 2015 :
This writ petition, under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, is at the instance of Pawan Kumar Jain, in whose favour retail outlet (petrol pump) dealership at Village Ishwari on the National Highway 3 (Agra–Mumbai), Tahsil Badarwas, District Shivpuri, has been awarded seeks indulgence in the matter of implementation of Letter of Intent dated 3.2.2014 issued by IOC.
For the sake of convenience, the facts in the Writ Petition No.9245 of 2012 have been dealt with.
2. It is the contention of the petitioner that the difference of the marks between the petitioner and the respondent No.3 is only 1.30. The land offered by the respondent No.3 falls within the definition “firm offer”, as provided for under clause 14(a) and (b) of the Brochure of the IOC, therefore, respondent No.3 was only entitled to be awarded 25 marks instead of 35 marks. It is submitted that under these circumstances, petitioner is entitled for award of the dealership at the aforesaid site.
3. Facts relevant and necessary for disposal of this writ petition are to the effect that an advertisement was published in the newspaper on 20.6.2012 (Annexure P-1) by IOC calling applications for award of petrol pump at various locations. Relevant for the purpose of this writ petition is the one appearing at S.No.45 of the advertisement. Petitioner and the respondent No.3 are amongst other candidates who applied for the same. Respondent No.3 had offered the land purchased by him along with his brother, Sunil Kumar Jain by a registered sale deed dated 2.7.2012 admeasuring 0.710 hectare falling in survey Nos.406 and 407/2 situated at village Ishwari, Tahsil Badarwas, District Shivpuri. Along with the sale deed, respondent No.3 had also submitted a notarized affidavit of his brother, unil Kumar Jain dated 11.7.2012 together with demarcation report attached with a map, wherein Sunil Kumar Jain had stated that he has no objection for installation of petrol pump at the site of the land jointly owned by him with respondent No.3 (from pages 300 to 305 of the paper book). Sunil Kumar Jain had also executed a power of attorney in favour of his brother, Pawan Kumar Jain (respondent No.3) dated 7.7.2012 (pages from 297 to 299 of the paper book).
4. The Committee constituted by IOC had considered the relative merits of the petitioner and the respondent No.3 with other candidates and prepared a Chart on 25.9.2012. Petitioner and respondent No.3 have been given 35 marks by the L.I. Committee in respect of the land, however, in aggregate, the petitioner has been awarded 85 marks and the respondent No.3 has been awarded 86.30 marks.
5. Petitioner had filed an objection on 20.10.2012 (pages No.108-109 of the paper book) by raising twofold objection, firstly; the land offered by the respondent No.3 does not meet the requirements as set out in the advertisement inasmuch as, the same is not within the required proximity of the location mentioned in the adve
