Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1592 (HP)

Sunil Kumar v. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.

2014-11-05

MANSOOR AHMAD MIR, TARLOK SINGH CHAUHAN

body2014
JUDGMENT : Mansoor Ahmad Mir, J. Judgment and order, dated 12th December, 2012, made by the learned Single Judge in a bunch of writ petitions, lead case of which is CWP No. 6399 of 2010, titled as Pardeep Kumar versus General Manager and another (hereinafter referred to as “the impugned judgment”), has given birth to both these appeals. Thus, we deem it proper to determine both these appeals by this common judgment. 2. Appellant in LPA No. 62 of 2013 has questioned the impugned judgment so far it relates to CWP No. 920 of 2012, titled as Sunil Kumar versus Indian Oil Corporation and others and the appellant in LPA No. 149 of 2013 has questioned the impugned judgment so far it relates to CWP No. 7350 of 2010, titled as Ms. Promila Kumari Sandil versus the General Manager (LPG) and others. 3. The writ petitioners in CWPs No. 6399 and 6549 of 2010 have not questioned the impugned judgment on any count, has attained finality so far it relates to them. 4. The impugned judgment is to be tested only so far it relates to CWPs No. 920 of 2012 and 7350 of 2010 on the touchstone of Rules occupying the field read with the pleadings of the parties. LPA No. 62 of 2013: 5. Appellant, i.e. the writ petitioner in CWP No. 920 of 2012, has specifically pleaded in the appeal as well as the writ petition that he was entitled to 25 marks instead of 10 marks awarded as per the criterion fixed by the respondents, details of which have been given in para 24 of the impugned judgment. 6. According to the writ petitioner, he is owner of land and is having absolute title because that land belongs to the family to which the writ petitioner belongs, but only ten marks were awarded, which is not according to the Rules, Regulations and the policy. 7. Admittedly, the extracts of revenue record produced by the writ petitioner before the respondents do disclose that he is a co-sharer; his mother and brother are also recorded as owners. Brother do not fall within the definition of family. 8. As per the definition, 'family' includes applicant, applicant's spouse, unmarried son(s)/daughter(s) and also the parents. It does not include married son(s), married daughter(s) or brother. Brother do not fall within the definition of family. 8. As per the definition, 'family' includes applicant, applicant's spouse, unmarried son(s)/daughter(s) and also the parents. It does not include married son(s), married daughter(s) or brother. Thus, the writ petitioner was not absolute owner of the said land and was not having the absolute title. The Writ Court has rightly recorded the findings in paras 24 and 25 of the impugned judgment, which are reproduced herein: “24. The word 'owned’ according to the policy, means having clear ownership title in the name of the applicant/family member of the 'family unit’. 'Family unit’ of a married applicant consists of self, applicant’s spouse and unmarried son(s)/ daughter(s) and also his parents, but the petitioner had attached the documents with the application of the land which was offered by him, it was an ancestral property and consent of the family members have not been furnished. Further, in the said land apart from the petitioner Tarsem Kumar, his married brother and mother are reflected as co-sharers to the extent of 3/14th share in the revenue record, who otherwise do not fall within the definition of 'family unit’. The selection guidelines provide marking under the heading “Capability to provide infrastructure and Facilities” and the same have been divided into three heads as below: a. Owns mean having clear title/registered sales deed of the suitable land/godown-based on documents 25 marks b. Firm Offer having agreement to purchase suitable land/godown-based on documents 18 marks ; and c. Can arrange-Based on documents 10 marks. 25. In the revenue papers aforesaid produced by the petitioner he was not having clear title of the plot/land offered, thus he was rightly awarded 10 marks under the sub-head (iii), i.e., 'can-arrange’. The land offered for construction of godown in the application form at Clause 12(a) is ancestral and undivided property. The value of the property is Rs. 2,03,49,000/- and the share of the petitioner comes out to Rs.43,60,500/- and in case the applicant is having property worth more than Rs.20 lacs then full 5 marks are to be awarded which was done, but in my opinion, the evaluation was rightly reviewed by the Committee after investigating his complaint, but despite that he failed to get merit. Thus, I do not find any force in the present petition, which also deserves to be dismissed.” 9. Thus, I do not find any force in the present petition, which also deserves to be dismissed.” 9. Having said so, the Writ Court has not committed any illegality and the appeal, i.e. LPA No. 62 of 2013, merits to be dismissed. LPA No. 149 of 2013: 10. The appellant, i.e. writ petitioner in CWP No. 7350 of 2010, was supposed to produce the original copies of all the documents annexed with the form. She had applied in terms of the advertisement notice and has annexed photocopies of the documents, but had neither annexed the original nor had produced some of the originals at the relevant point of time before the respondents. 11. Learned counsel for the appellant admitted that she had annexed some documents in addition to the documents required and had not produced originals of all the annexed documents at the time of scrutiny, but, stated that she had shown the same to one Shri Sunil Thakur, an employee of the respondent-Oil Corporation, but he has not allowed her to enter inside the room, where the interviews were being held and has not even looked into the documents which she was having. 12. The appellant-writ petitioner has also alleged that said Shri Sunil Thakur had some grudge against her as there was some dispute between their families, has not been arrayed as a party in the writ petition, thus, anything said in the writ petition against him cannot be looked into and examined. 13. Learned counsel for the appellant stated that it is a fact that the appellant-writ petitioner had not produced the original of the revenue documents, which she was not supposed to annex or produce in terms of the advertisement notice. 14. We have examined the impugned judgment and the documents alongwith the policy and are of the considered view that the Writ Court has rightly dismissed the writ petition in terms of the findings given in paras 16 and 17 of the impugned judgment. 15. We also deem it proper to record herein that the Apex Court in a recent judgment in the case titled as Sanjay Kumar Shukla versus M/s. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. & Ors., reported in 2014 AIR SCW 4945, has commanded that the Courts should be cautious in entertaining the writ petitions which are aimed at to prevent the eligible candidate to reap the fruits of selection. It is apt to reproduce para 15 of the judgment herein: “15. In the present case, fortunately, the litigation has not been very time consuming. Nothing has been suggested on behalf of the Corporation that the establishment of a retail outlet at Areraj, East Champaran District in the State of Bihar is not required as on date. It can, therefore, be safely understood that in the instant case the public of the locality have been deprived of the benefit of the service that the outlet could have generated. We have already indicated that the present litigation initiated by Respondent No. 7 does not constitute a very bona fide exercise on the part of the said Respondent and the entire litigation appears to have been driven by desire to deny the fruits of the selection in which the appellant was found to be the most eligible candidate. Whether the outlet is operated by the appellant or the Respondent No. 7 is of no consequence to the ultimate beneficiaries of the service to be offered by the said outlet. The above highlights the need of caution that was imperative on the part of the High Court while entertaining the writ petition and in passing orders therein. Be that as it may, in the totality of the facts of the present case, we are of the view that it would be just and proper to direct the Corporation, if it is of the view that the operation of the retail outlet is still justified by the exigencies, to award the same to the appellant by completing the requisite formalities in accordance with the procedure laid by the Corporation itself.” 16. Having glance of the above discussions, this appeal also deserves to be dismissed. 17. Viewed thus, both the appeals are dismissed and the impugned judgment is upheld. Pending applications, if any, are also disposed of.