Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 1904 (HP)

Achal Saini v. Union of India

2019-12-12

JYOTSNA REWAL DUA, L.NARAYANA SWAMY

body2019
JUDGMENT : L. Narayana Swamy, J. By way of this writ petition, the petitioner challenges impugned E-mail dated 21.05.2019 (Annexure P-12), whereby the candidature of the petitioner for award of Retail Outlet Dealership at Gora, Block Balh, Mohal Gora Gagal, Tehsil Balh, District Mandi, H.P., was rejected by the respondent-Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. (for short ‘the Corporation’). 2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that on 25.11.2018, respondent-Corporation issued an Advertisement Notice for setting up Retail Outlet Dealerships in different locations in the entire State of Himachal Pradesh, including Retail Outlet Dealership at Gora, Block Balh, Mohal Gora Gagal, Tehsil Balh, District Mandi, H.P. It is averred in the writ petition that on 25.12.2018, the petitioner submitted his online application in the prescribed format within the stipulated period. It is further averred that on 25.01.2019, the petitioner was informed by the respondent-Corporation that he has qualified for the draw of lots for selection of Retail Outlet Dealership and was directed to remain present alongwith all relevant documents on 06.02.2019 at 11.00 a.m., at the Institute of Engineers, Engineering Bhawan, Nigam Vihar, Shimla. In compliance to the aforesaid direction, the petitioner appeared at the aforesaid venue. It is further averred that vide E-mail dated 07.02.2019, issued at 5.51 p.m., (Annexure P-5), the petitioner was informed that he has been selected and was directed to deposit a sum of Rs.40,000/- towards initial security within 10 days and to submit all the requisite documents. The petitioner complied with the aforesaid requirements within the stipulated period. It is also averred that on 08.03.2019, the petitioner received a call from one Sh. Sanjay Singhal, the Field Officer of the respondent-Corporation to ensure his presence for inspection of the location of the land offered by him. The said inspection was carried out on the aforesaid date at 4.00 p.m. On the same date, i.e. on 08.03.2019, the petitioner received E-mail (Annexure P-8) from the respondent-Corporation, Office at Bombay, informing him that the Land Evaluation Committee would visit the site offered by him on 18.03.2019 and was directed to remain present alongwith all relevant documents at the site. Thereafter, on the same date, the petitioner received another E-mail (Annexure P-9), informing him that the visit of the Land Evaluation Committee, scheduled on 18.03.2019, has been preponed to 08.03.2019. Thereafter, on the same date, the petitioner received another E-mail (Annexure P-9), informing him that the visit of the Land Evaluation Committee, scheduled on 18.03.2019, has been preponed to 08.03.2019. It is further alleged that on receipt of the aforesaid information, the petitioner immediately rushed to the spot alongwith all relevant documents, but to his utter surprise, neither the Land Evaluation Committee of the respondent-Corporation nor any Field Officer was present on the spot. It is further averred that on 21.05.2019, the petitioner received E-mail (Annexure P-12), wherein it was mentioned that the Land Evaluation Committee had visited the site offered by the petitioner on 08.03.2019 and the same was found to be not meeting the required norms as per the Land Evaluation Committee. Thus, the candidature of the petitioner was rejected. 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the candidature of the petitioner for award of Retail Outlet Dealership at Gora was wrongly rejected by the respondent-Corporation. He further submits that on 08.03.2019, when the petitioner had received information from the respondent-Corporation to the effect that the inspection of the site offered by the petitioner would be carried out on the same day, he immediately rushed to the spot alongwith all relevant documents, but on reaching the spot, he found that neither the Land Evaluation Committee of the respondent-Corporation nor any Field Officer was present there. He further submits that on 21.05.2019, the petitioner received E-mail (Annexure P-12), whereby the candidature of the petitioner was rejected for the reason that the plot offered by him was not meeting the required norms, as per the Land Evaluation Committee. He further submits that the father of the petitioner sought information on 26.04.2019 under the Right to Information Act, 2005, from the Chief Executive Engineer, Mandi, and in turn, it was mentioned: “that the information sought by you is of commercial confidence and trade secret and hence, the information cannot be provided under Section 18(1)(d) of the Right to Information Act”. Learned Counsel has further referred to E-Mail dated 08.03.2019 (Annexure P-8), received at 5.56 p.m., whereby the petitioner was asked to ensure his presence alongwith all relevant documents on 18.03.2019. Learned Counsel has further referred to E-Mail dated 08.03.2019 (Annexure P-8), received at 5.56 p.m., whereby the petitioner was asked to ensure his presence alongwith all relevant documents on 18.03.2019. He further submits that on the same date, at 7.25 p.m., he received another E-mail (Annexure P- 9), whereby he was informed that the Land Evaluation Committee would visit the site offered by him on the very same day, i.e 18.03.2019 and he was directed to remain present alongwith all relevant documents at the site. Thereafter, on the same date, the petitioner received another E-mail (Annexure P-9), whereby he was informed that the inspection of Land Evaluation Committee scheduled on 18.03.2019, has been preponed to 08.03.2019. Learned Counsel further submits that these two E-mails received by the petitioner are contrary to the applicable Rules. The petitioner was required to be issued 10 days’ prior notice of the visit of the Land Evaluation Committee, as contemplated in the Brochure. But, in the instant case, the petitioner was directed to ensure his presence on the site offered by him on the very same day. Even, when he was directed to do the same, he immediately rushed to the spot, but to his utter surprise, neither the Land Evaluation Committee of the respondent-Corporation nor any Field Officer was present on the spot, rather he received the information regarding rejection of his case on 21.05.2019. He further submits that in E-mail dated 21.05.2019 (Annnexure P-12) the reason for rejection assigned by the respondent-Corporation was that the land offered by the petitioner was not meeting the required norms according to the Land Evaluation Committee, whereas in the information sought by his father under the Right of Information Act, he was informed that such information is of commercial confidence and trade secret and hence the same was denied. Learned Counsel further submits that the information sought under the Right to Information Act was public in nature, so the same could not have been denied, but the respondent-Corporation did so for the reason best known to it. 4. He further argued that the reasons for rejection of the candidature of the petitioner given in Annexure P-11 are different from that of Annexure P-12. 4. He further argued that the reasons for rejection of the candidature of the petitioner given in Annexure P-11 are different from that of Annexure P-12. He further submits that the father of the petitioner had also sought information under the Right to Information Act pertaining to starting and ending point of link/road/crossed over the patch between Village Bihana-Tikker link road Chowk to Kummi-Kansa link road Chowk on Mandi-Nalsar- Baggi-Sundernagar via Gagal road. In response to the said information, he was informed that the case of the petitioner was rejected on the ground that he had applied in respect of Chandyal village, which is outside the advertised area, whereas the advertisement was in respect of Village Gora. He further argued that the advertised area is not earmarked and is within two kilometers, whereas the petitioner had offered site in respect of a particular village. He submits that the action on the part of the respondent-Corporation in rejecting the candidature of the petitioner is arbitrary in nature. He prays that the impugned Annexure P-12 may be set aside and quashed and the respondents may be directed to re-visit the entire issue of evaluation of the land offered by the petitioner by directing the Land Evaluation Committee to visit the site of the petitioner. 5. On the other hand, learned Senior Counsel for the respondent-Corporation submits that the candidature of the petitioner was rightly rejected as the petitioner had himself mentioned that the land offered by him falls in village Chandyal, whereas the advertisement was issued in respect of Village Gora, Block Balh, Mohal Gora Gagal, Tehsil Balh, District Mandi. H.P. He further submits that no Advertisement was issued in respect of the land situated at village Chandyal. He also submits that generally an Advertisement is issued in respect of the stretch of location for the different site at different places within 2 to 5 kilometers throughout the State of Himachal Pradesh for the Retail Outlet Dealership, but in the instant case, the Advertisement was issued in respect of a particular village. He further submits that as per Annexure R-1, dated 08.03.2019, the Land Evaluation Committee visited the site where the petitioner was also present and he also signed Annexure R-1, the document of the Land Evaluation Committee. He prays that the petition be dismissed. 6. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties and have gone through the entire record carefully. He further submits that as per Annexure R-1, dated 08.03.2019, the Land Evaluation Committee visited the site where the petitioner was also present and he also signed Annexure R-1, the document of the Land Evaluation Committee. He prays that the petition be dismissed. 6. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties and have gone through the entire record carefully. 7. From the perusal of the record, it is evident that there are two aspects of the matter, one goes in favour of the petitioner and another goes in favour of the respondent-Corporation. The aspect in favour of the petitioner is that he was informed on 08.03.2019 to ensure his presence for inspection of the location of the land offered by him by the Land Evaluation Committee. This information was given to the petitioner by E-mail at 5.56 p.m. on the said date, but after about one and half hours, i.e. at 7.25 p.m., he was again informed that the visit of Land Evaluation Committee scheduled for 18.03.2019 has been preponed to 08.03.2019. This action on the part of the respondent Corporation is arbitrary in nature. Thus, it can be presumed that either the Land Evaluation Committee has carried out the inspection of the land offered by the petitioner in a very casual manner or the same has not been carried out at all. This can be said for the reason that the respondents withheld the information as to who had inspected the spot on 08.03.2019 when the father of the petitioner had sought for the same under Right to Information Act. The issuance of the second E-mail at 7.25 p.m. on the very same date i.e. on dated 08.03.2019 points towards the arbitrariness of the part of the respondent- Corporation. The inspection by the Land Evaluation Committee would have been carried out in a transparent manner and in accordance with the provisions of the applicable Rules. The inspection of the Land Evaluation Committee was preponed for the reasons best known to the respondent-Corporation. From the perusal of the record, it is not clear whether the inspection of the land offered by the petitioner was actually carried out or not. Thus, it can be said that the respondent-Corporation has committed an error. The inspection of the Land Evaluation Committee was preponed for the reasons best known to the respondent-Corporation. From the perusal of the record, it is not clear whether the inspection of the land offered by the petitioner was actually carried out or not. Thus, it can be said that the respondent-Corporation has committed an error. The Higher Authorities of the respondent-Corporation would have gone into the matter and an action would have been initiated against the officers/officials, who were responsible for this inaction on behalf of the respondent-Corporation. Therefore, this point goes against the respondent-Corporation. 8. Though, the aforesaid aspect goes against the respondent-Corporation, but it is not helpful to the petitioner for the reason that the Advertisement was issued for award of Retail Outlet Dealership at Gora, Block Balh, Mohal Gora Gagal, Tehsil Balh, District Mandi, whereas the petitioner had applied for award of Retail Outlet Dealership at village Chandyal, Gora Gagal, Tehsil Balh, District Mandi. It may be possible that the land offered by petitioner is close to the advertised area, but the place in respect of which the petitioner had applied for award of the Retail Outlet Dealership is different from the advertised area. This aspect of the matter goes against the petitioner. Though, the respondent-Corporation has committed an error grave in nature, but it is not helpful to the petitioner. The land offered by the petitioner may be close to the advertised area, but the advertisement was not in respect of land offered by the petitioner. 9. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. However, it is made clear that if any, Notification, stands issued in respect of Chandyal Village, the respondent-Corporation/Competent Authority is directed to consider the case of the petitioner under Group-3. 10. Pending applications, if any, also stands disposed of.