Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 713 (PAT)

Zullfikar Alee v. Union of India

2014-06-27

RAMESH KUMAR DATTA

body2014
ORDER : Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent-Indian Oil Corporation. 2. The petitioner seeks quashing of the letter dated 21.10.2013 issued by the Chief Area Manager, Patna Area Office, Indian Oil Corporation by which the candidature of the petitioner for the award of Rajiv Gandhi Gramin LPG Vitarak (RGGLV) at location Manjha, District-Gopalganj has been cancelled. 3. Shorn of unnecessary details the petitioner on the basis of advertisement published by the respondent-Indian Oil Corporation, emerged successful in the draw of lot for the RGGLV. Thereafter the field verification was made and the Field Verification Committee, as a matter of fact, cleared the case of the petitioner holding that the petitioner had land of the dimension and suitability in terms of the advertisement as also the approach road for the same. When the matter reached the competent authority of the Indian Oil Corporation for a decision on the same, it was found that the report of the Field Verification Committee suffered from the infirmity that the petitioner had not produced the registered lease deed with respect to two plots of land which formed part of the approach road, as admittedly the land of the petitioner did not abut a public road and several private lands had to be crossed before the road was reached. It is further admitted that the lease agreements of the plots were dated 8.7.2013, i.e., much after even the date of the Field Verification Committee report. It may be pointed out here that the advertisement was made on 26.2.2012 and the last date for application was fixed as 29.3.2012 and draw itself was conducted on 22.12.2012. In the aforesaid circumstances, the petitioner’s candidature was rejected by letter dated 21.10.2013 and on the petitioner’s filing representation dated 18.11.2013 the earlier rejection was upheld by letter dated 9.4.2014. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon clauses 4 (g), 12.9 and 12.10 of the Brochure on Selection of RGGLV and item No. 9 of the General Instructions to candidates applying for LPG Distributorship attached to the application form which are in the following terms:- “4 Applicant applying for RGGLV should ……………. …………… ……….. (g). own a suitable land (plot) of minimum 20 meter x 24 meter in dimension at the advertised RGGLV location for construction of LPG cylinder Storage Godown. …………… ……….. (g). own a suitable land (plot) of minimum 20 meter x 24 meter in dimension at the advertised RGGLV location for construction of LPG cylinder Storage Godown. Own means having clear ownership title of the property in the name of applicant/family member of the “Family Unit” as defined in multiple dealership/distributorship norm. In case of ownership/co-ownership by family member, consent letter from the family member will be required. Land for construction of Godown will be considered suitable, if it is freely accessible through all weather motorable approach road (public road or private road of the applicant connecting to the public road) and should be plain, in one contiguous plot, free from live overhead power transmission or telephone lines, Pipelines/Canals/Drainage/Nallahs should not be passing through the plot. 12.9. Field verification will be carried out for the selected candidate and if the information given in the application by the applicant is found to be correct, Letter of Intent will be issued to the selected candidate. 12.10. In case of rejection of selected candidate due to findings in the Field Investigation or if selected candidate is unable to develop facilities for Rajiv Gandhi Gramin LPG Vitrak within the specified time, then his candidature will be cancelled and draw will be held again from the remaining qualified eligible candidates to select the next candidate following the procedure as mentioned above in para 12.3 to 12.6.” 9. Details of the plot of Land for godown or ready made godown as on the Date of Application which meets the following requirement:- The plot of land should be of adequate size (within 15 km from municipal/town/village limits of the location offered in the same State) for construction of godown for storage of minimum 8000 Kg of Documents pertaining to land/ Godown in the name of applicant or member of “Family unit” Registered Sale Deed/Registered Gift Deed/ Registered Lease Deed (15 yrs. Minimum)/ Mutation and government record etc. The date of the documents have to be on or before the date of application. In case land is in LPG in cylinders or ready LPG cylinder storage godown. As per Gas Cylinder Rules 2004, the floor area of the storage shed for storing 8000 Kg LPG in cylinders should be 80 sq. metres. The length of the storage shed should not be more than 1.5 times of width of storage shed. In case land is in LPG in cylinders or ready LPG cylinder storage godown. As per Gas Cylinder Rules 2004, the floor area of the storage shed for storing 8000 Kg LPG in cylinders should be 80 sq. metres. The length of the storage shed should not be more than 1.5 times of width of storage shed. There should be clear minimum safety distance of 7 metres between storage shed and the boundary wall/fencing. A plot of land with minimum dimension of 26.15 metres by 27 metres is adequate. It should be freely accessible through all weather motorable approach road (public road or private road connecting to the public road). It should also be plain, in one contiguous plot, free from live overhead power transmission.” the name of member of “family unit” consent from the family member in form of Notarized Affidavit (Appendix 2) is required to be attached with the application. “Family Unit” is defined below in Important Note. 5. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that what the petitioner was required to show was that he had land as per the parameters prescribed in the advertisement and the Brochure on the date of application and so far as the approach road is concerned, the same could have been arranged before the specified period provided by the respondent-authorities of the Corporation for commissioning the godown which the petitioner had succeeded in doing by 8.7.2013 itself and thus there was no occasion for the respondents to have rejected the candidature of the petitioner by orders dated 21.10.2013 and 9.4.2014. 6. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that since the Field Verification Committee report was in favour of the petitioner, the petitioner’s case ought not to have been rejected by the respondent authorities and in case they had to disagree with the report of the Field Verification Committee the petitioner should have been given opportunity to explain his stand which, not having been done, amounts to violation of the principles of natural justice. 7. 7. Learned counsel for the respondent-Indian Oil Corporation, on the other hand, submits that it is evident from clause 4(g) of the Brochure that the requirement of holding the suitable land of the given dimension is fulfilled only if it is apart from the clear ownership title, freely accessible by a motorable approach road, i.e., public road or private road of the applicant connecting to the public road. It is further submitted that the said criteria had to be fulfilled on the date of application itself and it is not permissible for the candidate to attain the eligibility criteria after the date of the application by entering into further sale or lease agreement. 8. It is urged that in the present matter the case is much worse as even on the date of field verification the lease deed agreement for two plots were not in place and had not been submitted. 9. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the respondent-Corporation that in the given circumstances the competent authority of the Corporation was not obliged to blindly accept the report of the Field Verification Committee which suffered from lacuna of not having verified the lease/sale agreements with respect to all the connecting plots and given a report which was virtually incorrect. 10. Learned counsel further submits that the very selection is subject to Field Verification which includes verification of the facts stated in the application and the documents annexed thereto and thus at that stage there being no vested right of the applicant, there would be no question of complying with the principles of natural justice. It is thus, submitted that the candidature of the petitioner has been rightly rejected. 11. On a consideration of the submissions of learned counsels for the parties and of the facts and circumstances of the case, it is evident that the eligibility criteria being clearly laid down in Clause 4 of the Brochure for Selection of RGGLV effective from April 2011, the same apart from providing for clear ownership title of the applicant or the family unit as defined in multiple dealership/distributorship norms, it further makes clear that land for construction of godown will be considered suitable only if it is freely accessible through motorable approach road and such accessibility should be either from public road or private road of the applicant connecting to the public road. Thus, prima facie there appears to be much force in the submission of learned counsel for the Corporation that such eligibility pertains to the date of application and not really to the date of field verification which clearly is a subsequent event to verify the documents and statements with regard to the land, etc., by the concerned Committee constituted for the said purpose. However, since the said issue pertains to the possession of the eligibility criteria, it does not arise out of the impugned order dated 9.4.2014 which merely stipulate that the lease deed agreement dated 8.7.2013 of the plots presented by the petitioner are after the date of FVC and the same was not considered. This Court does not finally express its view with regard to necessity of possessing eligibility regarding freely accessible motorable road on the date of application or not. It can hardly be disputed that at least on the date of the field verification, it must be clear that the plot in question is approachable either from the main road itself or through a private road of the applicant connecting the land in question to the public road. The petitioner evidently was thus not possessing the land in accordance with the requirement of the advertisement and the Brochure on the date of the field verification. 12. In the said circumstances, this Court finds no force in the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that there has been any violation of the principles of natural justice by the respondents having disagreed with the report of the Field Verification Committee. It is not the question of disagreement with the Field Verification Committee rather discovery of a lacunae in the report in the sense that the Field Verification Committee had not performed its function in a complete or thorough manner by looking into the ownership/right to possess with respect to all the plots of lands which was to function as approach road to the land for the purpose of godown. 13. Moreover, it is not in dispute that after the initial order dated 21.10.2013 by which the candidature of the petitioner was cancelled holding that the plot offered by the petitioner is not connected with the approach road, the petitioner had filed a detailed representation and only after considering the same, the subsequent impugned order dated 9.4.2014 has been passed. 13. Moreover, it is not in dispute that after the initial order dated 21.10.2013 by which the candidature of the petitioner was cancelled holding that the plot offered by the petitioner is not connected with the approach road, the petitioner had filed a detailed representation and only after considering the same, the subsequent impugned order dated 9.4.2014 has been passed. Thus, no prejudice at all has been caused to the petitioner in the present matter and the issue of natural justice has only been raised as a hyper technical plea without any substance. 14. Thus, in the light of the aforesaid discussions, this Court does not find any reason to interfere with the impugned orders passed by the respondents. 15. The writ application is, accordingly, dismissed.