Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 426 (ORI)

Banaja Behera v. Hindustan Petroleum Corp. Ltd.

2006-05-19

P.K.MOHANTY, R.N.BISWAL

body2006
JUDGMENT R. N. BISWAL, J. : In this writ petition, the petitioner has sought for a direction to the opp.parties to award her H.P.C.L. Retail Outlet Dealership at Chandabali as per the selection list (Annexure-3) by quashing the order in Annexure-5/A. 2. Pursuant to the advertisement made by Hindustan Petro¬leum Corporation Limited (O.P. No.1) in English Daily ‘The Indian Express, Bhubaneswar dated 29.9.2004 (Annexure-1) the petitioner submitted an application for Retail outlet dealership in respect of Chandabali in due time. In the interview conducted on 17.6.2005 she stood first and as such her name was placed at sl. No.1 of the select list, Annexure-3, while Opp.party no.3 having stood second, her name was placed at sl. No.2 of the said list. As the petitioner got married to Prakash Chandra Tarai, the sole proprietor of Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd., (in short “B.P.C.L.”), Retail; outlet in the name and style of M/s. Maa Tarani Fuel Centre, Chudamani and incurred the disqualification of multiple dealership before the letter of intent was issued in her favour, her selection was cancelled vide Annexure-5/A in terms of clause 7(e) of Annexure-1 and clause-6 of the guidelines contained in the brocure of Opp.party No.1 (Annexure-6). In the meantime the marriage between the petitioner and her husband was dissolved by a decree of divorce on mutual consent on 7.3.2006 in Civil Proceeding No.23 of 2006 of the Court of the Judge, Family Court, Cuttack. In the present writ petition the petitioner chal¬lenged the correctness of the order in Annexure-5/A, as stated earlier. The Opp.parties in their counter affidavit inter alia took the plea that the petitioner was rendered disqualified to be awarded with the Retail Outlet dealership on the date of her marriage i.e. 7.12.2004 in terms of clause-6 of Annexure-6 and accordingly pressed to dismiss the writ petition. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, at the outset submitted that no where in the brochure (Annexure-6) it has been stipulated that person cannot be eligible for selection as a Retail Outlet dealer, if he himself or his/her spouse has been awarded with such a dealership in any other Oil Company. So such an eligibility criterion as prescribed in the advertisement, Annexure-1 is contrary to Annexure-6. The Word ‘any’ in clause 1.2.8. of the guidelines for selection of Retail Outlet dealers, formulated by the Govt. So such an eligibility criterion as prescribed in the advertisement, Annexure-1 is contrary to Annexure-6. The Word ‘any’ in clause 1.2.8. of the guidelines for selection of Retail Outlet dealers, formulated by the Govt. of India in Petrol and Natural Gas De¬partment vide office Memorandum dated 9th October 2000 (Annexure G/2) has been modified vide clause-VI of the Central Government guidelines dated 19th August 2003 (Annexure-F/2). A close scruti¬ny of both the circulars of the Central Government shows that the word ‘any’ has been obliterated in the subsequent circular, but, as it appears, the said word was inserted in the advertisement, Annexure-1, keeping in view the unmodified circular. So, there is no bar for allotment of two Retail Outlet Dealerships in favour of one person or in favour of a family unit by two different oil companies and in fact in Annexure-9, two Retail Outlets have been allowed in favour of one person. In the instant case, since the husband of the petitioner has been awarded with a Retail Outlet dealership by the B.P.C.L., it cannot be a bar for the petitioner to get the Outlet dealership from the Opp. party No.1 Company. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that after the marriage between the petitioner and her husband was dissolved by a competent Civil Court, the embargo that her previous husband had been awarded with the Dealership for Retail sale of petrol having been no more in existence, the selection of the petitioner ought not to have been cancelled. Per contra learned counsel for opp.party No.3 submitted that the word ‘any’ has been retained in clause 7(e) of the advertise¬ment (Annexure-1) in conformity with the central Government Circular, Annexure-G/2 and it is wrong to say that the subsequent circular Annexure-F/2 has obliterated it even by implication. So an individual or a family unit cannot be awarded with two Outlet dealerships either by a particular Oil Company or two different Oil Companies. So an individual or a family unit cannot be awarded with two Outlet dealerships either by a particular Oil Company or two different Oil Companies. In the case at hand, when on 7.12.2004, the peti¬tioner got married to Prakash Chandra Tarai who had/has a Retail Sale Outlet of B.P.C.L. at Chudamani, Bhadrak, she incurred the disqualification of multiple dealership and even if their mar¬riage is held to have been dissolved by mutual consent still then, she cannot be eligible to get the dealership, since the disqualification already incurred by her on the date of her marriage cannot be cured because of the subsequent divorce. Learned counsel appearing for Opp.Parties 1 and 2 supported the submission made on behalf of Opp.party No.3 and all of them per¬suaded to dismiss the writ petition. 4. Clause 1.2.8. of the office memorandum of Government of India, in Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas with regard to guidelines for selection for Retail Outlet Dealers/LPG Distribu¬tors/SKO-LDO Dealers, (Annexure-G/2) reads as follows; “1.2.8. multiple Dealerships: (i) Self. No person or an eligible Society shall be awarded a new dealership/distributorship, if the applicant or the Society already holds a Letter of Intent or dealership/distributorship of Motor Spirit/High Speed diesel (HSD) superior Kerosene Oil-Light diesel Oil (SKO-LDO) Liquefied Petroleum Gas (LPG) of any oil company (emphasis supplied) (ii) Relations. No person shall be awarded a new dealership/distributorship if he/she or any of his/her relatives (including step relatives) as given below already holds Letter of Intent or dealership/distributorship of any Oil Company. Other than physically Physically handicapped Handicapped persons persons (PH) Category. (P.H) Category (a) Spouse (a) Spouse. (b) Father/Mother. (b) Father/Mother. (c) Brother/Brother’s wife (c) Son/daughter-in-law (Not applicable for Women applicants (d) Son/Daughter-in-law” This clause was modified vide clause-VI of Annexure-F/2 dated 9.8.2003 by the Government of India in the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas to the extent that one Dealership may be allowed to a family unit consisting of the individual con¬cerned his/her spouse and unmarried sons/daughters. A plain read¬ing of clause 1.2.8. of Annexure-G/2 as modified clause-VI of Annexure-F/2 dated 9.8.2003 shows that a person cannot be eligi¬ble for selection as Retail Outlet dealer, if he or any of his family members as enumerated in clause-VI of Annexure F/2 has already been awarded with such Dealership by the same or any other Company. in our view the word ‘any’ as found in clause 1.2.8. in our view the word ‘any’ as found in clause 1.2.8. of Annexure G/2 cannot be said to have been obliterated by Annexure F/2, even by implication. The eligibility criteria including the multiple dealerships were fixed in the advertise¬ment (Annexure-1) in consonance with Annexure- F/2 and G/2. Since the husband of the petitioner has already been awarded with the dealership of Retail Outlet by B.P.C.L., the petitioner cannot be eligible to get the Dealership for such purpose in the opp.-party Company. 5. Admittedly the petitioner married Pratap Chandra Tarai, the sole proprietor of B.P.C.L. outlet in the name and style of M/s. Maa Tarani Fuel Centre at Chudamani on 7.12.2004 before the interview was conducted. She did not disclose about this marriage before the interview Board. No doubt her name was placed in sl. No.1 of the select list, but this selection was subject to other qualifications. She was rendered disqualified to get the dealer¬ship on 7.12.2004 i.e., the date of her marriage, consequently a right accrued in favour of Opp.party No.3 who stood second in the interview to be considered. This right cannot be defeated because of the subsequent divorce between the petitioner and her husband on 7.3.2006, particularly when the disqualification was incurred before the letter of intent was issued to the petitioner. Under such circumstances, we do not find any merit in the writ petition and as such it stands dismissed. P. K. MOHANTY, J. I agree. Petition dismissed.