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

2014 Supreme(SC) 91

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
P. SATHASIVAM, CJI., RANJAN GOGOI, J.
Sanjay Kumar Shukla – Appellant
Versus
M/s. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. & Others – Respondents
Civil Appeal Nos. 1871-1872 of 2014 Special Leave Petition (C) Nos. 17673-17674 of 2012
Decided On : 07-02-2014

IMPORTANT POINT
Courts should be cautious while interfering in contractual matters.

Headnote:(a) Constitution of India – Article 226 –Public interest – Elements restated. (Para 10)

       (b) Constitution of India – Article 226 – Government contract – Judicial review – Court must satisfy itself about public interest – Principles of judicial review in contractual matters restated. (Para 9, 11)

       (1999) 1 SCC 492; (2000) 2 SCC 617; (2005) 6 SCC 138; (2012) 6 SCC 464 – Relied upon

       (c) Constitution of India – Article 226 – Delay in judicial process – Effect – May result in Deprivation of the benefit of a service or facility to the public – Escalating costs burdening the public exchequer – Abandonment of half completed works and projects – Cautious and proper exercise of discretionary power in contractual matters emphasised. (Para 14)

       Facts of the case:

       This case relates to award of LPG distributorship.

       Finding of the Court:

       Appellant has been denied his due because of deliberate and not bona fide conduct of respondent no. 7.

       

Judgment :-

Ranjan Gogoi, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. These appeals are directed against the common judgment and order dated 16.05.2012 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Patna in Letters Patent Appeal Nos.1845 and 1916 of 2011. By the aforesaid impugned order, the High Court has directed that the respondent No.7 herein who was placed at serial No.2 of the select list/merit panel for award of dealership of retail outlet under the respondent No.1, i.e. M/s. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd., be offered the said dealership after completing the process contemplated under the selection procedure in force in the Corporation.

3. A summary of the essential facts is delineated hereinbelow:-

The first respondent Corporation issued an advertisement dated 30.05.2010 for award of dealership of retail outlets in different locations including Areraj, East Champaran District in the State of Bihar. The selection was to be made in accordance with the norms laid down by the Corporation and available in a booklet published on 15.09.2008 under the caption “procedure for selection of petrol/diesel retail outlet dealers” (hereinafter referred to as the “Norms”). On the basis of the applications received for grant of the dealership in question, a selection was held wherein the appellant was placed at Sl.No.1 with 78.04 marks whereas the respondent No.7 who had secured 77.75 marks was placed at Sl.No.2. The dealership was to be offered to the most meritorious candidate after necessary field verification. The norms contemplated issuance of a Letter of Intent (LoI) on the expiry of 30 days from the date of publication of the select list/merit panel or till disposal of complaints, if any, with regard to the selection made by the Corporation. A grievance redressal mechanism is expressly laid down in the ‘Norms’.

4. Aggrieved by the selection, the respondent No.7 filed a complaint dated 25.01.2011 before the Corporation raising a two-fold grievance. The first was with regard to award of ‘zero’ marks to the Respondent, against a maximum of ‘four’ awardable under the head “Fixed and Moveable Assets”. The second grievance raised was that the land offered by the appellant was under litigation and was not immediately available for use of the retail outlet. The complaint filed by the respondent No.7 was promptly answered by an order of rejection dated 28.01.2011 on the ground that the Technical Evaluation Committee in its report had found the land offered by the appellant suitable for development of the retail outlet and that the issue raised by the respondent in the objection/complaint would be dealt with in the process of grant of No Objection Certificate (NOC) by the District Magistrate to whom a reference of the matter is required to be made. In so far as the claim of the respondent No.7 with regard to award of marks is concerned, the same was rejected on the ground that the respondent had not furnished any document in support of his title to the assets mentioned by him in his application.

5. Aggrieved by the rejection of his complaint, the respondent No.7 moved the High Court by means of a writ petition registered and numbered as C.W.J.C. No.6125 of 2011. No Letter of Intent had been granted to the appellant at that stage. A learned Single Judge of the High Court by order dated 29.09.2011 took the view that in so far as award of marks to the respondent No.7 is concerned no fault can be found in the decision of the Corporation inasmuch as the respondent No.7 did not produce any document of title in respect of assets mentioned by him in his application for the dealership. In fact, the learned Single Judge came to the further conclusion that such failure on the part of the respondent No.7 amounted to suppression/concealment of relevant facts. In so far as the present appellant is concerned, the learned Single Judge came to the conclusion that the requisite NOC from the District Magistrate in respect of the land offered by the appellant not having been granted, th


























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