Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 242 (HP)

Nutan Kumari v. Union Of India

2018-03-01

AJAY MOHAN GOEL

body2018
JUDGMENT Ajay Mohan Goel, J —Brief facts necessary for adjudication of both these petitions are that an advertisement was issued by respondent-Indian Oil Corporation (hereinafter referred to as ''Corporation'') for setting up of retail outlet dealership at various places in the State of Himachal Pradesh on 16.9.2010 including Chirgaon, Tehsil Chirgaon, Distt. Shimla, Himachal Pradesh. As both the petitioners were interested in the allotment of the dealership in issue, they submitted their respective applications. After evaluation of the applications so submitted by the petitioners, a Committee constituted by the respondent-Corporation to evaluate the performance of the candidates vide Annexure P-3 appended with CWP No. 2571 of 2015 awarded 81.1 marks to Ms. Nutan Kumari and 85.6 marks to Ms. Kaveri Bhettan. Ms. Kaveri Bhettan was reflected as number one in the statement of performance. 2. Feeling aggrieved by the said evaluation, Ms. Nutan Kumari initially filed a complaint as provided for in para 18 of the brochure issued by IOCL for selection of petrol/diesel retail outlet dealership. As no action was being taken on the same, Ms. Nutan Kumari filed CWP No. 7936 of 2012 before this Court, which was disposed of vide judgment dated 19.10.2011 in the following terms:- "The writ petition is filed with the following prayers:- "(i) That the impugned order dated 29.9.2011 (Annexure P-3) passed by respondent No.2 while selecting the respondent No.3 as successful candidate for the allotment of retail outlet dealer of petrol/diesel at Chirgaon, Tehsil Chirgaon, Distt. Shimla, may kindly be set aside and quashed. (ii) That the respondents No.2 may kindly be directed to decide the complaint filed by the petitioner in terms of Clause 18 of the Brochure Annexure P-1 forthwith and the respondents may further be directed to allot the retail outlet dealer of petrol/diesel in favour of the petitioner." 2. It is seen that the complaint of the petitioner is already pending before the second respondent. There will be a direction to the second respondent to take final decision on the complaint of the petitioner (Annexure P-6) after participating the petitioner and respondent No.3 in the inquiry and pass appropriate orders in the matter within a period of three weeks from today. Needless to say that as per the guideline, the letter of intents will be issued only after the compliance, as above. 3. The writ petition is disposed of, so also the pending applications, if any. Needless to say that as per the guideline, the letter of intents will be issued only after the compliance, as above. 3. The writ petition is disposed of, so also the pending applications, if any. Authenticated copy." 3. Pursuant to this, respondent-Corporation informed Ms. Nutan Kumari that she was not eligible to be granted dealership vide communication dated 13.7.2011 which stands assailed by way of CWP No. 7936 of 2012, i.e. Annexure P-8 therein. It is pertinent to mention that there was a reference in this communication that the complaint which stood made by Ms. Nutan Kumari against Ms. Kaveri Bhettan was investigated and found to be established. This was followed by another communication dated 5.8.2014 (Annexure P-18 in CWP No. 2571 of 2015) addressed both to Ms. Nutan Kumari and Kaveri Bhettan on the subject "Speaking Order-Complaint regarding Selection of KSK Location Chirgaon District Shimla H.P. Category: Open(W) ", informing them that neither of them were found eligible for the purpose of allotment of dealership in question. This communication stands assailed in CWP No. 2571 of 2015. 4. Mr. G.D. Verma, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner-Kaveri Bhettan as well as Dr. Lakit K. Sharma learned counsel for petitioner-Nutan Kumari have, inter alia, argued that the impugned orders in their respective writ petitions are not sustainable in law as neither of the said orders can be said to be either a reasoned order or a speaking order. They further submit that perusal of the impugned orders demonstrate that the same were passed by the authorities concerned without any due application of mind and the orders do not justify the letter and spirit in which CWP No. 9093 of 2011 was disposed of by this Court. 5. Mr. G.D. Verma, learned Senior Counsel strenuously urged that when the directions issued by this Court in CWP No. 9093 of 2011 was to consider and decide the complaint which stood filed by Ms. Nutan Kumari, the authorities could not have gone beyond the scope of the averments made in the complaint especially when the order so passed by this Court in the earlier petition nowhere reflects that this Court had come to the conclusion that the award of marks by the Committee was bad in law. Dr. Nutan Kumari, the authorities could not have gone beyond the scope of the averments made in the complaint especially when the order so passed by this Court in the earlier petition nowhere reflects that this Court had come to the conclusion that the award of marks by the Committee was bad in law. Dr. Sharma has also strenuously argued that the very fact that this court was pleased to direct the authorities concerned to decide the complaint of the petitioner itself was a reflection of the fact that the award of marks was bad. 6. Be that as it may, this Court is not expressing its view either way. However, there appears to be merit in the contention of learned counsel for the petitioners that the impugned orders are not sustainable in law, as the same are non speaking orders. A perusal of the impugned orders demonstrate that there is neither any detailed discussion in the same with regard to the complaint or objections which were filed against the award of marks by the Selection Committee nor there is any reasoning assigned in the impugned orders as to how the authority had come to the conclusion that neither of the candidates was considered for the grant of dealership. The so-called reasons which stand assigned in the order are not only cryptic but also vague. There is nothing in the order which substantiates this cryptic reasoning. It is settled principle of law that when any authority decides a matter which affect rights of the parties, then the order so passed by the authority either as a quasi judicial authority or even otherwise should contain reasons as to why the decision which has been finally arrived at by the authority concerned has been so arrived at. In other words, a perusal of the order itself should be self explanatory. The order should, inter alia, reflect respective stand of the parties, discussion upon the respective contention of the parties and then reasoning leading to the conclusion. This is missing in both the impugned orders. In other words, a perusal of the order itself should be self explanatory. The order should, inter alia, reflect respective stand of the parties, discussion upon the respective contention of the parties and then reasoning leading to the conclusion. This is missing in both the impugned orders. Therefore, without further venturing on merit, both these writ petitions are allowed on this point alone by quashing the impugned orders i.e. Annexure P-8 dated 29.5.2012 and Annexure P-18 dated 5.8.2014 with further direction to respondent No.2 to hear the parties afresh after affording them an opportunity of putting forth their respective claims strictly on the basis of document which are on record with the respondent-Corporation. Taking into consideration the fact that the dealership was initially advertised as far back as in the year 2010, respondent No.2 is directed to offer an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners at the earliest and not later than 30 days from today and thereafter pass a speaking order within 30 days from the date when the parties are heard by the authority concerned. Both the parties shall at the first instance appear before respondent No.2 on 7.3.2018. It is made clear that the time so granted by the Court shall be strictly adhered to. Petitions stand disposed of in the above terms, so also pending applications, if any. No order as to costs.