Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 1897 (ALL)

Gauri Garg v. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.

2023-08-07

SIDDHARTHA VARMA, SYED QAMAR HASAN RIZVI

body2023
JUDGMENT : Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents and the counsel for the Indian Oil Corporation. 2. Indian Oil Corporation issued an advertisement in the daily newspaper, namely Amar Ujala on 17.12.2010 and invited applications for the dealership of retail outlets in various places in Eastern U.P. The location in question was on the State Highway No. 51 between Kilometers stone 119 and 124. The category was an "open women" category. The petitioner and the respondent no. 4 submitted the duly completed application forms on 31.1.2011 at the relevant office of the IOC. The petitioner and the respondent no. 4 both expected that their applications would be evaluated as per the standards given in the brochure. The brochure envisage evaluation on two grounds, one was with regard to the suitability of the land for the retail outlet and the other was with regard to financial soundness. The controversy revolves around the financial soundness. In the financial soundness column twenty marks were to be awarded. Out of these twenty marks liquid cash was to be assessed on the scale of twelve; fixed and movable assets were to be assessed at the scale of four and income from business, interest, rent, royalty etc, to be assessed on the scale of four. 3. Initially the petitioner and the respondent no. 4 out of all the applicants were considered to be the best candidates and were given 90.90 marks and 91.53 marks respectively on an overall assessment. Under the financial soundness category the petitioner was given four marks for fixed and movable assets and the respondent no. 4 was given 2.95 marks. So far as the income column was concerned, the petitioner was given 1.08 marks whereas the respondent no. 4 was given full marks i.e. 4 marks. 4. The petitioner, aggrieved by the fact that she was given lesser marks than she deserved under the column of income i.e. income from business, interest, rent, royalty etc, filed a grievance petition before the respondent no. 2 – Chief Manager (Retail Sales). Upon evaluating the case of the petitioner and the respondent no. 4, the Chief Manager (Retail Sales) who was looking into the grievance of the petitioner found that the petitioner was wrongly awarded only 1.08 marks and infact she ought to have been awarded four marks under that head. 2 – Chief Manager (Retail Sales). Upon evaluating the case of the petitioner and the respondent no. 4, the Chief Manager (Retail Sales) who was looking into the grievance of the petitioner found that the petitioner was wrongly awarded only 1.08 marks and infact she ought to have been awarded four marks under that head. In the result, the evaluation as was done on 30.11.2012 was set aside and the matter was remanded to be reconsidered afresh. 5. We find that the matter was again considered afresh on 18.11.2013 and on that day both the petitioner and the respondent no. 4 were given full marks i.e. four marks under the income clause. However, the petitioner was given only 1.25 marks for fixed and movable assets whereas the respondent no. 4 was given full four marks for the fixed and movable assets. In this manner, the petitioner again came second with 91.07 marks and the respondent no. 4 came first with 92.58 marks. The petitioner again challenged the markings by filing a grievance petition before the Chief Manager (Retail Sales) and the Chief Manager on 31.1.2014 after finding that both the petitioner and the respondent no. 4 had not given any report of any Government Approved Valuer with regard to their fixed and movable assets evaluated their assets himself and concluded that the respondent no. 4 was rightly given 4 marks on the basis of a sale deed submitted by her and the petitioner was correctly given 1.25 marks on the basis of sale deed submitted by the petitioner. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the order of Chief Manager (Retails Sales) dated 31.1.2014 on the ground that the provision with regard to the assessment of marks vis-a-vis the fixed and movable assets provided in the brochure had not been considered in its rights perspective. He has submitted that if one went by the provisions of the brochure, the Chief Manager (Retail Sales) ought to have strictly adhered to the directions given in the brochure, which provided that the fixed and movable assets would be marked only on the basis of an approved valuer's valuation report and the valuer had to be a Government Approved Valuer. He further submits that the sale deed submitted independently by candidates ought not to have been considered without the government valuers report. 7. He further submits that the sale deed submitted independently by candidates ought not to have been considered without the government valuers report. 7. In the alternative, learned counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that a particular sale deed dated 26.10.1998 which had been placed by the petitioner had also not been considered. He further submits that either both the applicants be given 'zero' for not having provided the Government Approved Valuers report or the correct marks be given on the basis of sale deed submitted. Further, grievance of the petitioner is that the commercial vehicle of the petitioner was also not considered for evaluating her movable assets. 8. Learned counsel for the Indian Oil Corporation has however opposed the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and has submitted that when there was no Government Approved Valuer's report then definitely the Chief Manager (Retail Sales) who was looking into the grievance petition could have looked into the movable and immovable assets of the parties and he further submits that valuation had to be taken for the fixed and movable assets to know as to whether a particular applicant was financially sound. 9. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the Indian Oil Corporation, this Court is of the view that a bare perusal of the brochure shows that the fixed and movable assets had to be looked into only as per the valuation report which had to be duly certified by a Government Approved Valuer and we find that the brochure says that the Government Approved Valuers Report was a necessary input. We do find that financial soundness had to be assessed as per the method given in the brochure. The brochure has specifically stated that financial soundness had to be based on "valuation report duly certified by Government Approved Valuers in support of assets". It further goes to say that the report was "necessary". 10. We are thus of the view that the word 'necessary' ought to be interpreted as mandatory. In the instant case when there was no Government Approved Valuer's report for the petitioner and also for the respondent no. 4, then the only inevitable conclusion would be that neither the petitioner nor the respondent no. 10. We are thus of the view that the word 'necessary' ought to be interpreted as mandatory. In the instant case when there was no Government Approved Valuer's report for the petitioner and also for the respondent no. 4, then the only inevitable conclusion would be that neither the petitioner nor the respondent no. 4 ought to have been given any marks under the fixed and movable assets category and infact the IOC should have insisted on the parties to have got a Government Approved Valuer's Reports. This having not been done, we are of the considered view that the whole exercise undergone by the Chief Manager, Retails Sales was an exercise in futility. He should have insisted upon the report from Government Approved Valuers and thereafter should have allotted the marks under the heading "fixed and movable assets". 11. Having regard to the facts and circumstances as mentioned above, the order dated 31.1.2014 passed by the respondent no. 2 is quashed and is hereby set aside. The matter is remitted back to the respondent no. 2, who would now get reports from the Government Approved Valuers and thereafter proceed to allot marks to the petitioners and the respondent no. 4. 12. For the reasons stated above, the writ petition stands partly allowed.