Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 831 (RAJ)

Beer Singh v. Indian Oil Corporation

2016-06-03

AJAY RASTOGI, NAVIN SINHA

body2016
JUDGMENT : 1. The present appeal arises from order dated 03.05.2016 in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4518/2016. The Learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition declining to interfere with order dated 14.12.2015 rejecting the representation of the appellant preferred consequent to the observation dated 8.4.2015 in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 978/2015. 2. Shri Mathur, Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant submitted that the land offered by the appellant for the LPG dealership was located opposite the Khushkhera Industrial Area. A road 150 feet wide only divided the lands from the industrial area. The land was easily accessible by road. The land was otherwise fully suitable for LPG dealership to the satisfaction of the respondents. The rejection of his candidature on 18.12.2014 for that singular reason was therefore unjustified. Earlier in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 978/2015 preferred against the order, this Court had directed him to represent and which was to be considered sympathetically including relaxation of the conditions. The representation has been rejected on 14.12.2015 without proper consideration including relaxation. 3. Counsel for the respondents opposing the appeal submitted that the representation has been duly considered and disposed by a reasoned order. The internal communication dated 10.12.2015 is ample evidence of fairness and full application of mind to the representation before rejecting it. The learned Single Judge has held that on the appellants own showing the land offered by him did not fall within the advertised area for establishment of the dealership in the Khushkhera Industrial Area. The location was an essential condition of the advertisement and which was the exclusive domain of the respondents. The dealership cannot be located at a site other than that advertised. The information furnished by the appellant with regard to the lands offered by him was found to be not in consonance with the advertisement during the field investigation report. 4. We have considered the submissions on behalf of the parties. 5. The location was advertised on 21.9.2013. The selection was therefore governed by the Marketing Discipline Guidelines (hereinafter referred to as “the guidelinesh”) of the three oil companies as framed in May 2013. Based on the information furnished by the appellant in his application he was held eligible to be considered under clause 9 of the guidelines by draw of lots. It is an undisputed fact that the location advertised for the LPG dealership was the Khushkhera Industrial Area. Based on the information furnished by the appellant in his application he was held eligible to be considered under clause 9 of the guidelines by draw of lots. It is an undisputed fact that the location advertised for the LPG dealership was the Khushkhera Industrial Area. Field verification of the information and documents furnished by the respondents along with his application was then carried out by the respondents under clause 10 of the guidelines. It revealed that the lands offered by the appellant for the dealership was outside the advertised location. The candidature of the appellant was therefore rejected on 18.12.2014. Aggrieved the appellant preferred S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 978/2015. The writ petition was disposed on 8.4.2015 opining as a fact that the lands offered by the appellant was not in accordance with advertised location and therefore no directions would be given to consider his candidature by deviating from the advertisement. However, it was observed that since the lands offered were situated opposite the advertised location, the respondents may consider grant of relaxation if the appellant approached them. The finding that the lands offered were not in accordance with the advertisement attained finality as the appellant did not challenge the order. 6. Consequently the appellant submitted a representation on 30.11.2015 but has chosen not to place a copy of the same on record. The internal communications of the Corporation dated 10.12.2015 more than amply demonstrates the due and complete application of mind by it to the representation at more than one level from the Manager/Senior Area Manager travelling up to the rank of General Manager through the Deputy General Manager, LPG-S. The respondents by a speaking order dated 14.12.2015 rejected the representation on the ground that the lands offered by the appellant were not situated in the advertised location as also held by the court in its order. 7. The location of the dealership as mentioned in the advertisement was the prerogative of the respondents alone and indeed was an essential condition of the advertisement. There was no relaxation clause in the advertisement and in any event an essential condition of the advertisement cannot be relaxed. The advertisement was only an invitation to offer for entering into a contract by those who met the conditions of the advertisement and vested no rights in an applicant to have his candidature considered in any particular manner. There was no relaxation clause in the advertisement and in any event an essential condition of the advertisement cannot be relaxed. The advertisement was only an invitation to offer for entering into a contract by those who met the conditions of the advertisement and vested no rights in an applicant to have his candidature considered in any particular manner. The Learned Single Judge had amply observed on the earlier occasion itself, reiterated in the order from which the appeal arises that no deviation from the advertisement could be directed. Any such direction would clearly fall foul of Article 14 of the Constitution inviting the vice of arbitrariness. The fact that any liberty may have been granted to represent cannot be construed as a direction to deviate from the advertisement. 8. The jurisdiction under Article 226 for judicial review has to be confined to errors in the decision making process only. The court will not sit as an appellate authority over the respondents. Once the representation has been considered and disposed by a speaking order which displays application of mind and is not based on irrelevant or extraneous materials the jurisdiction under Article 226 stands curbed. The contention of the appellant for a resurrected cause of action based on the fresh order on his representation, which already stood extinguished on merits by the earlier order itself is best epitomised by the observations with regard to the representation syndrome in (2008) 10 SCC 115 (C. Jacobv. Director of Geology and Mining) as follows:- “9. The courts/tribunals proceed on the assumption, that every citizen deserves a reply to his representation. Secondly, they assume that a mere direction to consider and dispose of the representation does not involve any “decision” on rights and obligations of parties. Little do they realise the consequences of such a direction to “consider”. If the representation is considered and accepted, the ex-employee gets a relief, which he would not have got on account of the long delay, all by reason of the direction to “consider”. If the representation is considered and rejected, the ex-employee files an application/writ petition…..A prayer is made for quashing the rejection of representation and for grant of the relief claimed in the representation. The tribunal/High Courts routinely entertain such applications/petitions……..”. 9. The order impugned calls for no interference. The appeal lacks merit and is dismissed.