Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 495 (ALL)

KHALID MOHAMMAD KHAN v. UNION OF INDIA

2009-02-12

PRADEEP KANT, SHABIHUL HASNAIN

body2009
PRADEEP KANT AND SHABIHUL HASNAIN, JJ. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner Sri Rakesh Kumar Nigam, Ms. Alka Saxena for the Union of India and Sri Anil Kumar for the Oil Corporation. 2. This petition is by a person who had applied for the award of dealer ship of the Kisan Sewa Kendra but could not succeed in getting the outlet. 3. In nutshell, the facts are that in pursuance of an advertisement made by the Oil Corporation dated 28. 6. 2006, the petitioner applied for location Babaganj. As per the scheme and the advertisement, the locations have to be first identified and then published inviting applications from the willing per sons for the opening of the Kisan Sewa Kendra at such decided locations. 4. The petitioner alongwith certain other persons applied for the said lo cation of Babaganj but the Dealer Selection Committee, after interviewing the candidates on 15. 11. 2007 recommended that no candidate was found suitable. Consequently, no panel was constituted giving the names of any candidate and it was only indicated that no candidate was found suitable, which was dis played on the notice board. The petitioner being aggrieved made a representa tion on 20:11. 2007 saying that he has not been awarded marks for the land though it is situated in Babaganj and if these marks were added, he would be the person who could be placed at serial No. 1 in the select list. 5. Since the representation was not being considered by the Corporation, therefore, Writ Petition No. 6046 (MB) of 2007 was filed by the petitioner, wherein a direction was issued for consideration of the representation. 6. In pursuance of the said direction, the representation has been consid ered and rejected vide order dated 9. 9. 2008 and the whole selection has been cancelled with the observation that in case there is a need to set up the Kisan Sewa Kendra in future, a fresh advertisement shall be published. 7. The discretion to open a Kisan Sewa Kendra or any outlet is of the Oil Corporation. The award of such outlet is to be done in accordance with law and by adopting a procedure which is uniform, non-arbitrary and non-discrimina tory. 8. 7. The discretion to open a Kisan Sewa Kendra or any outlet is of the Oil Corporation. The award of such outlet is to be done in accordance with law and by adopting a procedure which is uniform, non-arbitrary and non-discrimina tory. 8. In the instant case, the Oil Corporation relying upon the recommenda tion of Dealer Selection Committee and finding that the Babaganj was not a revenue village but was only a Majra and, therefore, it was not possible to properly demarcate it, has cancelled the selection. 9. Sri Anil Kumar, Counsel for the Corporation says that since the poten tiality of the place for opening the Kisan Sewa Kendra thus, was not found to be upto the desired expectation, therefore, the selection has been cancelled. 10. Sri Rakesh Kumar Nigam, learned Counsel for the petitioner, urged that this is a wholly arbitrary action on the part of the Corporation as the reasons given are not justified and also not true and that the petitioner having changed his position to his disadvantage, he cannot be refused consideration for the award of the Kisan Sewa Kendra, on such a non-existent ground, he having invested huge amount in preparing for getting the dealership. 11. He also relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. The International Airport Authority of India and others, AIR 1979 SC 1628 . 12. If an advertisement is issued inviting applications for the award of any outlet or Kisan Sewa Kendra and if any person applies in pursuance of such an advertisement, by mere application, he does not get any vested right to get the outlet nor he perfects his rights for having the outlet. Even the candidate who comes on the select panel does not have any enforceable right for getting the contract/outlet. 13. Merely because a candidate has done some preparation for becoming el igible for applying under the advertisement, would also not mean that he had invested any amount on any representation being made by the Corporation for giving him the outlet or the agency and, therefore, also he cannot claim any right even on the principle of doctrine of promissory estoppel as urged by the petitioners Counsel nor he could have any legitimate expectation for the con tract or award of Kisan Sewa Kendra. Investing money or making arrangement of the land only for the purpose of becoming eligible for being considered for se lection cannot be taken to be a change of stand or incurring liability on the rep resentation made by the Corporation that he would be selected. It is known to every candidate that unless he becomes eligible under the terms of the adver tisement, he cannot apply and his candidature would be rejected. It is also known to every candidate that despite he being eligible under the terms of the advertisement, he would necessarily not be selected in the final panel where his/her candidature will be considered alongwith all other eligible candi dates. It is only when the selection committee considers the candidature of all the candidates who are found eligible after scrutiny of the forms that a panel is prepared with maximum three names. Even after the panel is prepared, what right a panelist would have for getting the contract, is also not to be debated for the reason that a candidate on the panel does not have any enforceable right, though of course in the given facts and circumstances of the case if the exclusion of such candidate or wrong placement of a candidate is found, that can be corrected and such a right can be enforced. It can also be said that when a letter of intent is issued and such a person changes and alters his position, a different principle may be applicable in case the letter of intent is later on revoked. But where merely on an advertisement, application is made and the person has not been selected, he cannot raise the plea of doctrine of promissory estoppel nor that of legitimate expectation. 14. Lastly, in regard to the plea of the petitioner that the cancellation has been done arbitrarily for no basis, suffice would be to mention that the Corporation has not favoured any person for grant of Kisan Sewa Kendra. The Corporation in his own wisdom has thought that location Babaganj is not upto its expectation and is not viable for any reason whatsoever and, therefore, this Court would not enter into the question as to whether the Kisan Sewa Kendra could be established at Babaganj or not and if so, whether it would have been in the interest of the Corporation or not. It is purely a policy decision of the Corporation as to where the location of Kisan Sewa Kendra should be estab lished. 15. If the Corporation before the allotment made in favour of any person, decides to abandon the project or chooses to do away with the site chosen for opening of an outlet, it can do so, even though there may not be any reason oth erwise to cancel the process. The Corporation cannot be compelled to open the outlet against its own wish. 16. The order impugned also says that in case it is required that a Kisan Sewa Kendra is to be established on a particular place, a fresh advertisement shall be published. That being so, the petitioner may apply for the same, if he so wishes and is otherwise eligible. 17. The writ petition has no force and is dismissed. Petition Dismissed. .