1 WP 7370-2020.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD

WRIT PETITION NO. 7370 OF 2020

Keshav s/o Baburao Awchar

Age-21 years, Occu. Business,

R/o Pratap Nagar, Parbhani,

Tq. & District - Parbhani

.. Petitioner

Versus

Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd.,

Through its Head of Regional Office,

Solapur Retail Regional Office,

HPCL, Pakni IRD, Near Railway Station,

Pakni, Solapur.

.. Respondent

Mr. V. D. Sapkal, Senior Advocate i/by Mr. Manish P. Tripathi, Advocate

for the Petitioner.

Ms. Anjali Bajpai-Dube, Advocate for Sole Respondent.

CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA &

SHRIKANT D. KULKARNI, JJ.

Date on which reserved for order : 26^th February, 2021.

Date on which order pronounced : 08^th March, 2021.

PER COURT:-

.

Pursuant to the advertisement issued by respondent the

petitioner applied for the Retail Outlet (R.O.) dealership for the

location at N.H. 61 from Stone No. 445 to 447, Parbhani-Manwat Road

reserved for candidate of Scheduled Caste.

2.

The petitioner applied from Group-I category. The petitioner was

1 of 9

2 WP 7370-2020.odt

selected in the draw. The petitioner was directed to submit documents

for verification. The respondent upon verification of the documents

cancelled the candidature of the petitioner from Group-I category and

placed him under Group-III category. The same is assailed in the

present writ petition.

3.

Mr. Sapkal, the learned senior counsel strenuously contends that

the respondent failed to consider the agreement to lease in its correct

perspective. The entire document of lease has to be read for arriving at

the conclusion. The petitioner is holding the offered land on lease for

19 years and 11 months under registered agreement dated 24.12.2018.

It is only after registration of document the petitioner filled in the

application for Retail Outlet dealership.

4.

The respondent cannot just rely on isolated sentence in the

agreement to arrive at the conclusion. If entire agreement is perused,

the intention of the parties is clear that the offered land is leased to the

petitioner for 19 years and 11 months. The purpose of lease is also

mentioned. Further under the lease deed right is given to the petitioner

to sublease and erect the retail outlet. The lease rent is also fixed at

Rs. 500/- per month. Reading the entire document, it is clear that the

intention of the parties is to create lease and valid lease has come into

existence. The petitioner possesses the leasehold right for 19 years and

2 of 9

3 WP 7370-2020.odt

11 months of the offered land under the registered instrument of lease.

No other interpretation is possible. The learned senior counsel relies on

the judgment in the case of Balram Raoji Nasare Defendant 1 –

Appellant Vs. Mahadeo Panduji Plaintiff and Anr., Defendant 2-

Respondents reported in AIR 1949 Nagpur 389. The Nomenclature of

the document is not decisive, but the contents of the lease deed.

5.

The learned senior counsel also relies on the judgment of the

Apex Court in case of Trivenibai and another Appellants Vs. Smt.

Lilabai Respondent reported in AIR 1959 SC 620 and submits that

though the agreement is styled as agreement to lease it creates a

present demise. A document executed by laymen must be liberally

construed.

6.

The learned senior counsel further contends that subsequently

correction deed to the agreement to lease is executed on 28.12.2020

and the intention of the parties is clarified in the registered correction

deed.

7.

Smt. Dube, the learned counsel for respondent submits that the

petitioner was considered from Group-I on the basis of the

representation made by the petitioner that he had leasehold rights of

the offered land pursuant to the registered instrument for perio