SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
SAROJ KANWAR – Appellant
Versus
HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPN. AND ANR – Respondent
CW 8968/2015



Advocates:
['DR NUPUR BHATI', '', 'SAJJAN SINGH RATHORE', 'RS SHEKHAWAT', 'PAWAN SINGH', 'DHIRENDRA SINGH', 'SUNIL BENIWAL', '', 'MANISH PATEL']

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT

JODHPUR

S.B. Civil Writ No. 8968/2015

Saroj Kanwar W/o Shri Sher Singh, Aged about 37 years, R/o

House No.625, Mohan Nagar B, B.J.S. Colony, Jodhpur,

Rajasthan.

----Petitioner

Versus

1. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited through its

Managing Director, 17, Jamshedji Tata Road, Mumbai.

2. The Chief Regional Manager, Jodhpur Retial Region, Bhagat

Ki Kothi, Jodhpur, Rajasthan.

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s)

:

Mr. S.S. Rathore.

For Respondent(s)

:

Mr. Sunil Beniwal.

Mr. Manish Patel, AGC.

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA

Order

04/07/2018

Heard.

Facts in nutshell are that the petitioner applied for grant of a

retail outlet dealership in furtherance of an advertisement issued

by the HPCL in the Open Women category at the location “near

Chadi within 3 Kms. either side from Village Chandi Bus Stand on

S.H. No.19 in Jodhpur District, Rajasthan”. The petitioner was

successful in the interview held by the selection committee and

was placed at serial No.3 having secured 75.4 marks. One Smt.

Seema W/o Ganpat Ram was also amongst the three candidates

selected for the retail outlet and she stood first in merit. However,

as per the petitioner, she has foregone her claim for award of

dealership because of successful allotment of another location.

(2 of 4)

[CW-8968/2015]

Second ranked candidate in the list was Smt. Radha Joshi who

was initially awarded 77.5 marks but later on, four of her marks

were deducted and she could finally secured only 73.5 marks and

thus dropped below the petitioner in ranking. The aforesaid Smt.

Radha Joshi preferred a writ petition No.6144/2013 challenging

the decision of the respondents in deducting her marks. The said

writ petition was rejected by this Court by order dated

05.05.2014. It is stated that the said order was never challenged

and has attained finality. The petitioner thus claims that she

remains the only qualified and selected candidate for award of the

questioned dealership, and thus, the respondents be directed to

issue the LOI in favour of the petitioner for the location she

applied for.

Shri Sunil Beniwal, learned counsel representing the

respondents, though formally opposed the submissions advanced

by the petitioner’s counsel, but, he candidly conceded that with

the exclusion of other two selected candidates, the petitioner has

a right to stake a claim for award of the dealership in question.

However, he drew the Court’s attention to the amendment made

in the guidelines for selection of the retail outlet dealership by the

Government of India, Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas on

23.06.2014 which reads as below:-

“I am directed to say that the matter regarding the process

of allotment of Retail Outlet (RO) dealership/LPG

distributorship has been examined in the Ministry. OMCs are

directed to cancel all cases of Ros/LPG distributorship

allotments in the cases where interviews (including

original or re-scheduled or arising out of established

complaints) are pending as on date of issue of this

letter. OMCs are advised that all such locations may be

taken up afresh as per extant policy under new system of

“draw of lots” by undertaking fresh process of selection.

(Emphasis supplied)”

(3 of 4)

[CW-8968/2015]

Shri Beniwal submits that since the matter relating to the

award of questioned retail outlet was pending as on the date of

issuance of the above letter issued by the Government of India,

manifestly, the process itself has become redundant and now, a

fresh selection process has to be held under new system of “draw

of lots”.

Having heard and considered the arguments advanced by the

learned counsel for the parties and after going through the above

mentioned amendment in the guidelines, this Court is not in the

least convinced by Shri Beniwal’s argument that the selection in

question has become redundant. It may be stated that while

entertain

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top