Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 82 (JK)

Gulla Parray v. I. O. C.

2009-02-26

MOHAMMAD YAQOOB MIR

body2009
1. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. intended to setup retail outlets (petrol/diesel) at various locations in the States of Punjab, Jammu and Kashmir and Himachal Pradesh. In this connection, notice has been issued and published. In the said notice, one of the locations in the State of J&K is shown as Sumbal Link Road, Baramulla, figuring at s.no.49. Seven persons which include petitioner and respondent no.6 responded to the notice. As such, applied. Finally, six persons including petitioner out of the seven candidates were ignored being ineligible. Therefore, only respondent no.6 had been called for interview. Five persons have not challenged the process, so their position has to be ignored. Petitioner has challenged the process. 2. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, petitioner has been deprived of his legitimate expectations by treating him differently as compared to respondent no.6. It is projected that for showering the benefit to respondent no.6 arbitrarily, petitioner has been ignored. 3. As per the notice, suitable land was required in the area by way of outright sale/lease for setting up the said retail outlets. It is also contained in the notice that: "If the land is found suitable, the land owners or their nominees from within the family, Spouse, Father/Mother, Brother/Brothers wife, Son/Daughter-in-law, Daughter/Son-in-law, Grandson, Granddaughter or their spouse will be considered for award of dealership provided they meet the required eligibility criteria/norm. 4. What flows from this note is that suitability of the land is precondition for consideration for award of dealership. The offers were to be submitted in a two bid system. "Technical" and "Finance". Which is quoted below: - (A) TECHNICAL BID; Details of the plot of land offered, alongwith copies of documents duly signed is to be submitted under the Technical Bid. Technical Bid should not have any reference of other price/cost of land. The following details should be furnished by the bidder: (1) Name of the owner(s) of the land. (2) Key plan showing details of the property situation of the plot. - (3) Area offeree1 for sale/lease alongwith dimensions of the plot. (4) 7/12 Extracts or its equivalent Viz. Khatoni, Jamabandi, Khasra, Girdawari etc. and the title Deed viz. Sale Deed etc. showing the ownership of the land duly authenticated as true copy. (5) Power of Attorney holder should submit a copy of the Registered Power of Attorney. - (3) Area offeree1 for sale/lease alongwith dimensions of the plot. (4) 7/12 Extracts or its equivalent Viz. Khatoni, Jamabandi, Khasra, Girdawari etc. and the title Deed viz. Sale Deed etc. showing the ownership of the land duly authenticated as true copy. (5) Power of Attorney holder should submit a copy of the Registered Power of Attorney. Offers received without the documents/details stipulated above are liable to be rejected. (B) FINANCIAL BID; The Financial bid should contain the following: (1) The offer is for sale or for lease or for wither sale or Lease. (2) In case of sale, expected Sale Consideration in Rupees. (3) In case of lease, expected Lease rental per month in Rupees and period of lease. 5. Petitioner had offered the land measuring 5 kanal and 7 marlas situated at Wahidpora covered by survey no.245-A of 245- B. Likewise, respondent no.6 had offered land measuring four kanals and 3 marlas covered by survey no. 1052 situated at Village Rakhi Shilwat. 6. During the scrutiny of the papers, petitioner pursuant to letter dated 09.11.2005 had been informed that the land papers submitted were examined by the legal advisor certain shortcomings were pointed out, therefore, was asked to produce revenue extract Girdawari for preceding 12 years and no objection from co-sharers. Same was to be produced by 21.11.2005. 7. Likewise respondent no.6 vide another similar letter dated 09.11.2005 had been intimated that land papers submitted by him were examined. Shortcomings were pointed out, therefore, was asked to produce no objections certificate from Abdul Hamid Sofi, S/o Gh. Rasool Sofi, same was to be produced by 21.11.2005. 8. Petitioner contended to have submitted the requisite extract of Girdawari for preceding 12 years as well as no objection from his co-sharer and delivered it to Depot Manager Sanant Nagar, namely Nisar Ahmed, on 21.11.2005 by hand who in turn has stated to have sent the same to Jammu office of the respondents but respondents deny to have received the said documents. On the other hand, they claim to have received requisite no objection certificate from respondent no.6. 9. The respondents on the pretext of having not received the aforesaid documents from the petitioner have ignored him, therefore, only one candidate remained i.e. respondent no.6 who was called for interview. 10. Petitioner noticing the indifferent attitude of official respondents, filed the writ petition which was subsequently amended. 9. The respondents on the pretext of having not received the aforesaid documents from the petitioner have ignored him, therefore, only one candidate remained i.e. respondent no.6 who was called for interview. 10. Petitioner noticing the indifferent attitude of official respondents, filed the writ petition which was subsequently amended. Now the moot question which arise for consideration is as to whether petitioner has not been treated at par with the respondent no.6 or as to whether respondent no. 6 has been extended undue benefit. In this connection, it is quite relevant to mention that the land was offered by petitioner. The technical team of the respondents has ascertained the suitability of the land. The said team comprising of three persons have prepared "land evaluation report", which is favourable to the petitioner which shows that the land offered by the petitioner was suitable. Petitioner has been asked to produce Girdawari for preceding 12 years and NOC, why so, because as per the Revenue entry viz-a-viz survey no. 245-A & 245-B in addition to name of the petitioner there exists name of Co-sharer but volume of land is 26 Kanals and 5 marlas and 17 kanals respectively. On the other hand respondent no.6 had offered land covered by survey no. 1052. Extract of Girdawari available on record reveals that survey no. 1052 comprises of land measuring 145 kanals and 3 marlas. Though same has been divided into three parts in the Khasra Girdawari, and is shown as 5 kanals 3 marlas in 1052, 70 kanals in 1052, then again 70 kanals in survey no. 1052 why it has been done, perhaps to show that for land measuring 5 kanals 3 marlas there is the entry of only two person i.e. respondent no. 6 and one Abdul Hamid and in this context, no objection of Abdul Hamid has been called which he has produced. There cannot be three different entries for survey no. 1052 unless the main number is divided and sub-numbers are given. This position perhaps has not been noticed or has been ignored otherwise respondent no.6 could also be asked to produce no objection certificate of all other persons figuring in the entries viz-a-viz said survey no. Hence, It appears that revenue record has not been properly appreciated. Therefore, petitioner and respondent no.6 have not been treated alike. 11. This position perhaps has not been noticed or has been ignored otherwise respondent no.6 could also be asked to produce no objection certificate of all other persons figuring in the entries viz-a-viz said survey no. Hence, It appears that revenue record has not been properly appreciated. Therefore, petitioner and respondent no.6 have not been treated alike. 11. As per the "Brochure", pertaining to setting up of petrol/diesel retail outlets, in case of rejection of the application for dealership, reasons for rejection in writing were to be send to the petitioner and then petitioner was not required to be called for interview. Same is contained in para 12 (h) of the "Brochure" which reads as under. "(h) The applications received are scrutinized after the cut off date for receiving the applications as given in the advertisement. Incase of applications rejected at the time of scrutiny, the concerned applicant will be advised the reasons for rejection in writing and such applicants will not be called for interview." 12. As per para 17 of "Brochure", 1 dealership is to be offered to the candidate who figure no. 1 in the merit panel on the basis of the interview and necessary field verification and a letter of intent is to be issued by IOC. 13. Firstly, the respondents have not communicated to the petitioner that his application has been rejected. Secondly, the petitioner though has obtained extract of Girdawari for 12 years, photocopy of which is placed on record is stated not to have been received but the petitioner has pleaded that he had delivered the said record on 21.11.2005 to Depot. Manager, Nisar Ahmed at Sanat Nagar. Same has not been specifically denied in the earlier filed reply which after admission has been treated as counter. It is also strange that the petitioner has been asked to show the title of the land, offered by him when his position as reflected in the records clearly indicate his title. 14. What emerges out of the above said position is that the case of the petitioner is not different but at par with respondent no.6. Legitimate expectations of the petitioner seem to have been snatched for no fault of the petitioner. 15. For reasons stated respondents are directed to consider case of the petitioner as well as that of the respondent no.6 afresh. Legitimate expectations of the petitioner seem to have been snatched for no fault of the petitioner. 15. For reasons stated respondents are directed to consider case of the petitioner as well as that of the respondent no.6 afresh. After considering the revenue papers as well as no objection certificate as shall be afresh produced by of both the petitioner and respondent no.6 the respondents shall take proper decision. If both found eligible for interview shall call them for interview and then final decision regarding selection in terms of the notice requiring land for retail outlets (petrol/Diesel) shall be taken within a period of 15 days. This exercise of 15 days, if required, shall be extended by further 15 days subject to just cause. 16. The writ petition is disposed of on the aforesaid terms. Record (pertaining to the petitioner) as produced by Mr. Anil Bhat, appearing counsel for respondents 1 to 5 be returned to him by the Registry. Disposed of.