Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 776 (CAL)

Ashoke Kumar Kundu v. Indian Oil Corporation

2010-07-09

ANIRUDDHA BOSE

body2010
Judgment : ANIRUDDHA BOSE, J:- 1. The writ petitioner was an applicant for a retail outlet dealership of Indian Oil Corporation, which was to be operated as COCO basis (company owned and company operated). The petitioner, however, was unsuccessful in the selection process and it was the respondent no. 6 who had been selected for operating this outlet, located between Dunlop Bridge, B.T. Road crossing and Dakshineswar on Vivekananda Road, on the northern fringe of Kolkata. The applications for this dealership were invited in a common advertisement published in the ‘Telegraph’ dated 18 November 2006. The description of location of the outlet appears against serial no. 41 in the said advertisement. The selection committee of IOC found the candidature of the respondent no. 6 suitable and on 9 August 2007 letter of intention was issued to the successfully candidate being the respondent no. 6 herein. 2. The writ petitioner was earlier operating this outlet on a job contract basis. On 11 August 2007 the possession of the site was taken over by the Company and on 13 August 2007, letter of intent was given to the respondent no. 6 on the basis of such selection process. 3. The selection of respondent no. 6 has been challenged by the writ petitioner in this proceeding. The case of the writ petitioner, argued by Ms. Chama Mukherjee, learned counsel is that the private respondent had furnished false documents in support of his application and in this regard complaint was raised by a member of the legislative assembly as well as an individual consumer. Under the guideline of the Indian Oil Corporation, these complaints are required to be investigated, and the case of the petitioner is that the same was not done in a proper manner. The complainants were Sri. Manash Mukherjee, a member of the West Bengal Legislative Assembly and one Nitai Jana. For the purpose of ensuring viability of dealership, individual applicants were required to furnish affidavits from the prospective customers. The petitioner himself did not make any complain but his case is based on the complaint made by the aforesaid two individuals. Nitai Jana’s complaint is that the affidavits in support of the petitioner’s dealership were not properly verified. One of the deponents of such affidavit, Prabhunath is alleged to have claimed that he never filed any affidavit. The petitioner himself did not make any complain but his case is based on the complaint made by the aforesaid two individuals. Nitai Jana’s complaint is that the affidavits in support of the petitioner’s dealership were not properly verified. One of the deponents of such affidavit, Prabhunath is alleged to have claimed that he never filed any affidavit. Other affidavit of one Fuldip Singh was also not properly verified and the allegation of the petitioner is that this affidavit bore the signature of one Kuldip Singh. It was also argued that the description as regards location of dealership was erroneous in these affidavits. All the three affidavits uniformly recorded the location of dealership as “Dunlop (Kol) (B.T. Road, Crossing)”. The petitioner’s case is that the authorities did not conduct the investigation in the manner it is required to be done as per the guideline of the company. 4. On behalf of the petitioner, two authorities were relied on. The case of B. R. Chowdhury Vs. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. & Ors. reported in (2004) 2 SCC 177 was cited in support of the submission that suppression of material fact in an application for grant of dealership ought to invalidate the application. On the aspect of reference of a wrong site in the application, the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Hindustan Petroleum Corporation & Anr. Vs. Chander Bhan & Anr. reported in 2006(7) SCC 525 was referred to. It was argued that reference to a wrong location ought to invalidate the process of selection. From the affidavit of Indian Oil Corporation filed in the present proceeding, I find that the company had actually made investigation and found the allegations of Nitai Jana unsustainable. So far as the complaint of Sri Mukherjee, Member of the Legislative Assembly is concerned, it has been recorded in the report of investigation: “B. Complainant: Hon’ble MLA Sri Manash Mukherjee (vide his letter dt. 28th June 2007- FLAG J) The complainant has just mentioned that several complaints have been received by him regarding the selection of the dealer, Mr. Sachidanand Singh. However, there is no specific complaint against the selection of RO Dealership for the subject location; as such no investigation can be undertaken.” 5. In these circumstances, the investigating body recommended the complaints of the two individuals ought to be quashed. Sachidanand Singh. However, there is no specific complaint against the selection of RO Dealership for the subject location; as such no investigation can be undertaken.” 5. In these circumstances, the investigating body recommended the complaints of the two individuals ought to be quashed. It was after this exercise the private respondent was granted the Letter of Intent. 6. The main submission of Ms. Mukherjee is that the investigation was not properly done on the basis of these allegations. I have examined the affidavits, copies of which form part of pleadings. As regards errors in these affidavits, I find the same is not of a high degree. The description of the location broadly corresponds to the actual location. The case of the petitioner is that the location of the outlet is not on the crossing of Dunlop and B.T. Road but between Dunlop Bridge B. T. Road crossing and Dakshineswar. This is a minor error in description. So far as the name of the deponent in the affidavit of Fuldip Singh, the examining authorities did not find any gross error. A copy of this affidavit has been made Annexure “R3” in the affidavit-in-opposition of the oil company. I find from this affidavit that the affidavit has been affirmed in the name of Fuldip Singh, and there is signature also, which is not legible. Below this signature, the name Kuldip Singh appears in capital letters. This does not appear to me the signature of the deponent. Since the signatory has been identified by a learned Advocate, and no specific case has been made out that there is no Fuldip Singh but only Kuldip Singh, I do not think this Court can review the decision of the oil company based on their own investigation. As regards the affidavit of Tiwari, in the absence of any statement made on oath that he never filed any affidavit, I do not think this Court can take cognizance of such allegation. The other allegation that one Thakur Tiwari did not own any vehicle was also examined and dealt with by the investigating body of the oil company. Ms. Vinita Meheria appeared on behalf of the Indian Oil Corporation, and she submitted that the investigation was done as per the existing norms. Dr. Chakraborty appeared for the private respondent and submitted that it was Fuldip Singh himself who had signed the affidavit. 7. Ms. Vinita Meheria appeared on behalf of the Indian Oil Corporation, and she submitted that the investigation was done as per the existing norms. Dr. Chakraborty appeared for the private respondent and submitted that it was Fuldip Singh himself who had signed the affidavit. 7. The disputes raised in this writ petition are essentially factual in nature. The petitioner himself had not complained against the grant of the dealership to the private respondent at the initial stage but he has mainly relied on the complain of two other individuals. I do not think an unsuccessful applicant can come forward with a complain against a successful applicant by two unconnected individuals has not been investigated properly. None of the complainants have come forward before this Court. I have gone through the errors or discrepancies pointed out on behalf of the petitioner and find them to be minor discrepancies. In the light of these facts, in my opinion this Court has to accept the finding of the investigating agency of the oil company. As regards the decision cited on behalf of the petitioner, I do not think there has been any gross suppression of material fact which would attract the ratio of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of B. R. Chowdhury (supra) in the facts of the present case. In the present case, the site disclosed in the affidavits broadly corresponds to the site for which the application was invited. In the case of Hindusthan Pertroleum Corporation (supra) the actual site was altogether different from the one which was disclosed. I have already observed that the error in description of the site was minor, and cannot be treated to be fatal in nature. Certain other authorities were cited on behalf of the parties on the scope of judicial review in the matters of this nature. These authorities lay down well-established principles of administrative law, and I do not consider it necessary to individually refer to these authorities for the purpose of adjudication of this writ petition. 8. Under these circumstances, the writ petition fails. 9. There shall, however, be no order as to costs. 10. Urgent Photostat certified copy of this judgment, if applied for, be given to the parties as expeditiously as possible.