Gujarat High Court
Vikramsinh Anopji Chavda vs Chief Regional Manager - Hindustan ... on 1 December, 2016
Author: R. Subhash Reddy
Bench: R.Subhash Reddy, Vipul M. Pancholi
C/LPA/790/2016 CAV JUDGMENT
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 790 of 2016
In SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 13131 of 2016
With
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7969 of 2016
In
LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 790 of 2016
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. R.SUBHASH REDDY
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIPUL M. PANCHOLI
==========================================================
1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be
allowed to see the judgment ?
2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ?
3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the
fair copy of the judgment ?
4 Whether this case involves a substantial
question of law as to the interpretation
of the Constitution of India or any order
made thereunder ?
==========================================================
VIKRAMSINH ANOPJI CHAVDA....Appellant(s)
Versus
CHIEF REGIONAL MANAGER - HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION
LTD & 4....Respondent(s)
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR S.I.NANAVATI, SENIOR COUNSEL WITH MR DEVANG J JOSHI,
ADVOCATE for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR ASIM J PANDYA, ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 1
NOTICE SERVED BY DS for the Respondent(s) No. 2 - 4
MR ANSHIN DESAI, SENIOR ADVOCATE WITH VENU H NANAVATY,
CAVEATOR for the Respondent(s) No. 5
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. R.SUBHASH REDDY
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIPUL M. PANCHOLI
Page 1 of 20
HC-NIC Page 1 of 20 Created On Fri Dec 02 00:38:36 IST 2016
C/LPA/790/2016 CAV JUDGMENT
Date : 01/12/2016
CAV JUDGMENT
(PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIPUL M. PANCHOLI)
1. This appeal is filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent against an order dated 05.08.2016 rendered by learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No.13131 of 2016 by which the learned Single Judge has dismissed the petition.
2. The facts in nutshell for deciding the controversy involved in present appeal are as under:
2.1.The Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd.
('HPCL' for short), Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. ('IOCL' for short) and Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. ('BPCL' for short) published a notice on 03.09.2013 for appointment of LPG distributors under various categories prescribed under the said notice. The appointment was subject to terms and conditions of the guidelines issued by the respondent HPCL which are known as guidelines for Selection of Regular LPG Distributor, 2013. It is the case of the appellant - original petitioner (hereinafter referred to as 'the petitioner') that Clause 3 of the said advertisement prescribed for basic facilities required for operation of LPG distributorship.
2.2. The petitioner applied for the said distributorship of LPG and on 12.08.2014 draw was held, wherein respondent No.5 was selected. It is Page 2 of 20 HC-NIC Page 2 of 20 Created On Fri Dec 02 00:38:36 IST 2016 C/LPA/790/2016 CAV JUDGMENT the case of the petitioner that in compliance of condition No.3, respondent No.5 submitted lease agreement dated 07.11.2013 for a period of 15 years for the purpose of showroom as well as godown. It is alleged that the land shown by respondent No.5 was an agricultural land and therefore as per Clause 3 of the guidelines, respondent No.5 could not have offered agricultural land. Thus, it is the case of the petitioner that respondent No.5 was not eligible in participating even at the draw stage.
2.3. It is alleged that respondent No.5, in connivance with the officers of respondent HPCL, took advantage of administrative instructions dated 15.04.2015 issued by the Ministry of Petroleum and Gas, under which it was intimated that a candidate should be given an opportunity to offer an alternate land and the guidelines should me made flexible. As per the say of the petitioner the said instructions cannot be made applicable with retrospective effect.
2.4. It is further stated that after the lucky draw held on 08.12.2014 and respondent No.5 was selected, the original owner of the land bearing Survey No.298/5, executed a sale deed on 04.04.2015 in favour of third party. However, respondent No.5 did not bring the same to the notice of respondent HPCL. Thus, the respondent No.5 has defrauded the respondent HPCL. It is further stated that on 20.05.2015, respondent Page 3 of 20 HC-NIC Page 3 of 20 Created On Fri Dec 02 00:38:36 IST 2016 C/LPA/790/2016 CAV JUDGMENT HPCL issued a Letter of Intent in favour of respondent No.5 after the Field Verification of Credential ('FVC' for short) was carried out by the officers of the respondent HPCL.
2.5. It is the case of the petitioner that subsequent to the Letter of Intent dated 20.05.2015 issued by respondent HPCL, respondent No.5 submitted one more lease deed dated 05.06.2015. It is alleged that as per Clause 10 of the guidelines, after the submission of the documents with respondent HPCL, the FVC is required to be carried out by respondent HPCL. However, after submission of earlier document i.e. lease deed dated 07.11.2013 by respondent No.5, FVC was carried out and on the basis of the said FVC Letter of Intent was issued on 20.05.2015 in favour of respondent No.5. Such FVC was carried out on 05.06.2015 in respect of the land originally offered by respondent No.5. However, the subsequent deed which was produced by the respondent No.5 is concerned, it is alleged that the respondent HPCL had never carried out FVC which is a condition precedent before issuance of Letter of Intent.
2.6. It is stated that on 19.10.2015, respondent HPCL issued a letter of appointment in favour of respondent No.5 appointing him as a distributor of LPG for Arvalli District at Modasa. When petitioner came to know, a Regular Civil Suit No.111 of 2015 came to be filed with a prayer Page 4 of 20 HC-NIC Page 4 of 20 Created On Fri Dec 02 00:38:36 IST 2016 C/LPA/790/2016 CAV JUDGMENT that the Letter of Intent dated 20.05.2015 issued in favour of respondent No.5 be declared as illegal and also prayed that the same be quashed and set aside. An application for interim injunction was granted in favour of the petitioner against which CAFO No.4 of 2016 came to be filed by respondent No.5 before the District Court. Respondent No.1 HPCL also filed an appeal against the order passed below Exh.5. The Appellate Court allowed the said appeals by an order dated 12.04.2016 and the order passed below Exh.5 was quashed and set aside. Against which, the petitioner filed Special Civil Application No.6852 of 2016 and allied matters. This Court passed an order on 20.06.2016 whereby petitions filed by the petitioner were disposed of with a liberty to file representation / complaint before the Grievance / Complaint Redressal System as per Clause 3 of the Guidelines.
2.7. Petitioner therefore filed representation / complaint before the Grievance/Complaint Redressal System of respondent HPCL. By an order dated 27.07.2016, the representation/complaint made by the petitioner was rejected and therefore the petitioner filed the captioned petition before this Court, wherein the petitioner prayed for the following relief/s:
"(A) YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus or a Writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, Page 5 of 20 HC-NIC Page 5 of 20 Created On Fri Dec 02 00:38:36 IST 2016 C/LPA/790/2016 CAV JUDGMENT order or direction quashing and setting aside the Order dated 27.07.2016 passed by Respondent No.2 herein and the Letter of Appointment dated 19.10.2015 issued in favour of Respondent No.5 (Annexure "A"
hereto).
(B) Pending the hearing and till the final disposal of present Petition, YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to restrain the Respondents, their servants, agents and subordinates from allowing/permitting Respondent No.5 to act as Distributor of LPG in pursuance of the Appointment Letter dated 19.10.2015 and YOUR LORDSHIPS may further be pleased to direct the Respondent Corporation, their servants, agents and servants not to allot LPG customers to Respondent No.5.
OR IN THE LATERNATIVE-
YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to extend the relief granted by this Hon'ble Court by Order dated 20.06.2016 which was also extended in the Order passed in Misc. Civil Application No.1942 of 2016 dated 19.07.2016 which is in operation till 05.08.2016.
(C) Such other and further relief/s may be deemed just and proper in the facts and circumstances of present case may kindly be granted."
2.8. The learned Single Judge, by an order dated 05.08.2016 dismissed the petition and therefore the petitioner has preferred the present appeal.
3. Heard learned Senior Counsel Mr. S.I.Nanavati appearing with learned advocate Mr. Devang Joshi Page 6 of 20 HC-NIC Page 6 of 20 Created On Fri Dec 02 00:38:36 IST 2016 C/LPA/790/2016 CAV JUDGMENT for the appellant, learned advocate Mr. Asim Pandya for respondent No.1 and learned Senior Counsel Mr. Anshin Desai assisted by learned advocate Ms. Venu H. Nanavaty for respondent No.5.
4. Learned Senior Counsel Mr. Nanavati mainly contended that initially, respondent No.5 had offered land at Survey No.298/5 at Modasa for showroom and land at Survey No.244 of village Dungarwada, Taluka Modasa for godown. The said lands offered by him were agricultural lands and therefore on the said lands non-agricultural activities cannot be carried out and therefore on the date of consideration of his application, respondent No.5 was not an eligible candidate.
4.1. Learned counsel for the appellant would thereafter contend that land at Survey No.298/5 was taken on lease by respondent No.5 on 07.11.2013. However, the original owner sold the said land to third party vide registered sale deed dated 04.04.2015 and the said fact was suppressed by respondent No.5 and therefore the respondent HPCL ought not to have considered the case of respondent No.5 for allotment of distributorship.
4.2. Learned counsel would further contend that the guidelines were changed by instructions dated 15.04.2015 by Ministry of Petroleum & Natural Gas, Government of India, whereby the selected Page 7 of 20 HC-NIC Page 7 of 20 Created On Fri Dec 02 00:38:36 IST 2016 C/LPA/790/2016 CAV JUDGMENT candidates were permitted to offer an alternate land. It is alleged that such change was made to accommodate the respondent No.5 and such instructions would not be applicable with retrospective effect. Hence, the impugned decision taken by the respondent HPCL as well as the learned Single Judge be set aside.
4.3. Learned counsel for the appellant lastly submitted that after the instructions dated 15.04.2015, respondent No.5 had offered another land being Plot No.98 GIDC, Modasa for showroom vide lease deed dated 05.06.2015 for which FVC was not carried out by the respondent HPCL and thereby the respondent HPCL has violated Clause 15 of the Guidelines. It is therefore submitted that the impugned order dated 27.07.2016 passed by Deputy General Manager, North-West Zone - LPG of respondent HPCL as well as impugned order dated 05.08.2016 passed by learned Single Judge be set aside.
5. On the other hand, learned advocate Mr. Asim Pandya appearing for the respondent HPCL supported the order passed by the committee of Grievance/Complaint Redressal System of respondent HPCL as well as the reasonings given by the learned Single Judge. It is submitted that the order passed by the Redressal Committee is self-explanatory and the said Committee has considered all the aforesaid grievances raised by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant -
Page 8 of 20HC-NIC Page 8 of 20 Created On Fri Dec 02 00:38:36 IST 2016 C/LPA/790/2016 CAV JUDGMENT original petitioner. It is submitted that the respondent HPCL has taken the decision in accordance with the guidelines and the instructions issued by the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas, Government of India and when the commercial decision is taken by the respondent HPCL in accordance with the guidelines and when respondent No.5 is selected by way of draw, it cannot be said that the respondent HPCL has discriminated the petitioner or there is any favouritism in favour of respondent No.5. It is contended that scope of judicial review while exercising the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is very limited and therefore the learned Single Judge has rightly refused to entertain the petition filed by the petitioner. It is further submitted that though the letter of appointment is issued in favour of respondent No.5 way back i.e. on 19.10.2015 and LPG distributorship is commissioned and regulators/LPG connections are allotted in favour of respondent No.5 on 21.10.2015, because of the interim order passed by various Courts, till date respondent No.5 is not in a position to start the said LPG distributorship, as a result of which the public at large is sufferer. He, therefore, requested that this appeal be dismissed and the stay granted by this Court be vacated.
6. Learned Senior Counsel Mr. Anshin Desai appearing for respondent No.5 vehemently opposed the appeal and submitted that no illegality is Page 9 of 20 HC-NIC Page 9 of 20 Created On Fri Dec 02 00:38:36 IST 2016 C/LPA/790/2016 CAV JUDGMENT committed by the respondent HPCL while allowing the distributorship of LPG in favour of respondent No.5. There is no requirement under the guidelines that only non-agricultural land can be offered for godown or showroom. It is submitted that respondent No.5 was fulfilling the criteria laid down under the Guidelines and therefore he was permitted to participate in the draw of lot. It is further contended that when the respondent No.5 has initially offered the land bearing survey no.298/5 of Modasa, a lease deed concerning the said land was executed in favour of respondent No.5 on 07.11.2013. The said lease deed was registered before the office of the Sub-Registrar, Modasa. However, despite a registered lease deed in favour of respondent No.5, the lessor was persuaded to sell the land bearing survey No.298/5 to one Patel Divyakantbhai and Patel Hareshkumar. It is alleged that such transaction was entered into at the behest of the petitioner. At this stage, it is submitted that in the sale deed there is no reference with regard to the lease deed executed by the lessor in favour of respondent No.5.
6.1. Learned counsel thereafter would contend that in the meantime, on 15.04.2015 instructions were issued by the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas, Government of India to all the three companies viz. Respondent HPCL, IOCL and BPCL, inter alia stating that the selected candidates should be given an opportunity to offer an Page 10 of 20 HC-NIC Page 10 of 20 Created On Fri Dec 02 00:38:36 IST 2016 C/LPA/790/2016 CAV JUDGMENT alternate land and the said guidelines should be made flexible. At this stage, it is submitted that when the Letter of Intent was issued on 20.05.2015 in favour of respondent No.5, respondent No.5 was not aware about the sale deed executed by the lessor in favour of one Patel Divyakantbhai and another on 04.04.2015. However, when it came to the notice of respondent No.5, as permitted by the instructions of Government of India, new lease deed for godown was executed on 05.06.2015 between respondent No.5 and one Renishkumar K. Parmar for Plot No.98 of village Ganeshpur, Taluka Modasa. The said lease deed was also registered before the office of the Sub- Registrar, Modasa. On 11.09.2015, a lease deed for showroom was also executed between respondent No.5 and Kuriya Mokshesh, the lessor for land bearing City Survey No.4315/B/1/B and City Survey No.4312/1/B/3 of 1st floor of Shri Yogikrupa Shopping Center at Modasa. The said lease deed was also registered before the office of the Sub- Registrar, Modasa. At this stage, it is submitted that FVC was carried out for the said lands on 05.10.2015 by HPCL. It is further submitted that thereafter on 19.10.2015, appointment letter was issued in favour of respondent No.5 by the respondent HPCL and agreement was also executed. Thereafter the LPG distributorship is commissioned and respondent No.5 is allotted regulators/LPG connections.
Page 11 of 20HC-NIC Page 11 of 20 Created On Fri Dec 02 00:38:36 IST 2016 C/LPA/790/2016 CAV JUDGMENT 6.2. In the aforesaid background, it is submitted that when the Complaint Redressal Committee of the respondent HPCL has considered the grievance of the appellant - petitioner and rejected the complaint and when the learned Single Judge has confirmed the said order by dismissing the petition, this Court may not entertain this appeal and the stay granted in favour of the petitioner be vacated.
6.3. In support of his submissions, learned counsel Mr. Desai has placed reliance on the following decisions rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court:
(1) In the case of Virender Chaudhary v.
Bharat Petroleum Corporation & Ors., reported in (2009) 1 SCC 297.
(2) In the case of Sanjay Kumar Shukla v. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited & Ors. reported in (2014) 3 SCC 493.
(3) In the case of Sunita Gupta v. Union of India & Ors., reported in (2014) 15 SCC
601.
7. We have considered the submissions canvassed on behalf of learned advocates appearing for the parties. We have also gone through the material produced on record. It is not in dispute that the present petitioner as well as respondent No.5 along with others participated pursuant to the notice published for appointment of distributorship of LPG. It is also not disputed Page 12 of 20 HC-NIC Page 12 of 20 Created On Fri Dec 02 00:38:36 IST 2016 C/LPA/790/2016 CAV JUDGMENT that respondent No.5 was selected by way of draw of lot for the distributorship in question at Modasa. It is also not in dispute that respondent No.5 executed a lease deed dated 07.11.2013 for the land situated at survey no.298/5 of Modasa with one Jaiswal Arvindbhai Bhikhabhai and the said lease deed was registered with the office of Sub-Registrar, Modasa. Similarly, another lease deed for godown is executed for Plot No.244 situated at village Dungarwada, Taluka Modasa with one Jodha Zorawarsinh and the said lease deed is also registered with Sub-Registrar. Thereafter, on 12.08.2014, draw was conducted for allotment of LPG distributorship. For the land offered by the respondent No.5, FVC was carried out on 13.11.2014. It is relevant to note that on the date of FVC, respondent No.5 was having lease deed in his favour for the aforesaid lands. It is further borne out from the record that on 04.04.2015, the lessor sold the land bearing Survey No.298/5 of Modasa to one Divyakantbhai Patel and another. However, in the said sale deed there is no reference with regard to the lease deed executed by the lessor in favour of respondent No.5.
8. It is also not in dispute that on 15.04.2015, instructions were issued by the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas, Government of India to all the three companies viz. Respondent HPCL, IOCL and BPCL, whereby the selected candidates were permitted to offer an alternate land. Thus, Page 13 of 20 HC-NIC Page 13 of 20 Created On Fri Dec 02 00:38:36 IST 2016 C/LPA/790/2016 CAV JUDGMENT when the petitioner came to know that though his lease deed was registered with Sub-Registrar, the concerned lessor sold the land which was given on lease to respondent No.5 in favour of one Ambalal Patel and others behind the back of respondent No.5, he submitted alternate land as per the instructions issued by the Government of India and new lease deed dated 05.06.2015 for godown was executed between respondent No.5 and one Mr. Parmar for plot No.98 of village Ganeshpur, Taluka Modasa. Similarly, a lease deed for showroom was also executed between respondent No.5 and the concerned lessor on 11.09.2015. Thus, it is not in dispute that as per the instructions of Government of India, an alternate land was submitted by respondent No.5 to respondent HPCL for godown as well as showroom. It is pertinent to note at this stage that in the meantime on the basis of FVC which was carried out for the land which was earlier offered by the respondent No.5, Letter of Intent was issued on 20.05.2015 in favour of respondent No.5. It is reflected from the record that for the alternate land which is now offered by respondent No.5, FVC was carried out on 05.10.2015 and therefore it is not correct on the part of the petitioner that for the alternate land no FVC is carried out by the respondent HPCL.
9. In the aforesaid factual aspects, if the relevant clauses of the advertisement and guidelines issued by the respondent HPCL are Page 14 of 20 HC-NIC Page 14 of 20 Created On Fri Dec 02 00:38:36 IST 2016 C/LPA/790/2016 CAV JUDGMENT examined, it is revealed that Clause 3 of the advertisement provides for basic facilities required for operation of LPG distributorship, which reads as under:
"3. Basic facilities required for operation of LPG Distributorship.
(a) Godown for storage of LPG in
cylinders:
LPG distributor would require a storage godown duly approved and licenced by Chief Controller of Explosives of Petroleum and Explosives Safety Organisation (PESO) for storage of 8000 KG LPG in cylinders.
The Applicant should own:
A plot of land of minimum dimensions 25 M x 30 M (within 15 k.m. From Municipal/Town/village limits of the location offered in the same State) for construction of LPG Godown for storage of 8000 KG of LPG in cylinders. The plot of land of construction of godown not meeting the minimum dimension of 25 M x 13 M will not be entertained.
OR A ready LPG Cylinders storage godown (within 15 k.m. From Municipal/Town/village limits of the location offered in the same State) of 8000 kg capacity.
(b) Show room:
A show room of minimum dimension of 3 M x 4.5 M as per the standard layout is to be Page 15 of 20 HC-NIC Page 15 of 20 Created On Fri Dec 02 00:38:36 IST 2016 C/LPA/790/2016 CAV JUDGMENT made in a shop/land located in the advertised location or locality as specified in the advertisement for LPG distributorship and it should be easily accessible to general public through a suitable approach road."
9.1. Clause 10 of the Guidelines reads as under:
"10. FIELD VERIFICATION OF CREDENTIALS (FVC):
a. Verification of the information given in the application by the applicant with the original documents and with the issuing authorities wherever required is called Field Verification of Credentials (FVC).
b. Field verification will be carried out for the selected candidate as per laid down procedure. If in the FVC, the information given in the application by the applicant is found to be correct, Letter of Intent (LOI) will be issued with the approval of competent authority.
c. If in the FVC it is found that information given in the application is at variance with the original documents and that information affects the eligibility of the candidate, then a letter would be sent by Registered Post AD / Speed Post pointing out the discrepancy. Candidature of selected candidate in such a case will be cancelled and 10% of applicable security deposit remitted by the selected candidate before FVC will be forfeited if false/incorrect/misrepresented information has been given in the Page 16 of 20 HC-NIC Page 16 of 20 Created On Fri Dec 02 00:38:36 IST 2016 C/LPA/790/2016 CAV JUDGMENT application."
10. From Clause No.3 of the advertisement as well as Clause No.6(vii) of the guidelines, it is clear that it is nowhere specified that the land required should be converted for non-agricultural purpose on the date of the application and the word used in the said clause is for construction of LPG godown. Thus, it is not correct on the part of the petitioner to contend that agriculture land cannot be offered. At this stage, it is also relevant to note that as per the findings recorded by the Grievance/Complaint Redressal Committee the petitioner has also offered an agriculture land along with his application for the said distributorship. Thus, we are not convinced with the submission as advanced by learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant - original petitioner that respondent No.5 was not eligible at the time of draw of lots as he has not offered the lands to be used for non-agricultural purposes.
11. Though the concerned lessor executed lease deed in favour of respondent No.5 which was also registered with the office of Sub-Registrar, behind the back of respondent No.5 the said lessor executed a lease deed in favour of one Divyakantbhai Patel and others on 04.04.2015 i.e. after the draw of the lot. It is pertinent to Page 17 of 20 HC-NIC Page 17 of 20 Created On Fri Dec 02 00:38:36 IST 2016 C/LPA/790/2016 CAV JUDGMENT note at this stage that for the said land, Field Verification was carried out by the HPCL. Further, there is no reference in the sale deed with regard to lease deed executed in favour of respondent No.5. Thus, from the record, it cannot be said that respondent No.5 was aware about the sale deed dated 04.04.2015 executed for the said land in favour of third party. Thus, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, respondent No.5 cannot be said to have suppressed the aforesaid fact.
12. It is also borne out from the record that on 15.04.2015 instructions were issued by the Ministry of Petroleum & Natural Gas, Government of India to respondent HPCL and other companies, wherein the said companies were directed to give an opportunity to the concerned candidates to offer an alternate land. Thereafter, on 20.05.2015, a Letter of Intent was issued in favour of respondent No.5. Immediately, respondent No.5 executed a lease deed with regard to alternate land, as permitted by the Government and respondent HPCL. It is also reflected from record that for new land offered by respondent No.5, FVC has been carried out on 05.10.2015. Thus, we are of the opinion that respondent No.5 has not suppressed the fact of execution of sale deed dated 04.04.2015 with regard to the first parcel of land offered by Page 18 of 20 HC-NIC Page 18 of 20 Created On Fri Dec 02 00:38:36 IST 2016 C/LPA/790/2016 CAV JUDGMENT him. Moreover, as per the Industry Record Note dated 15.07.2015 which is placed on record, respondent No.5 has complied with such conditions. The said note dated 15.07.2015 reads as under:
"If the land offered by the candidate in the application or the alternate land offered by the candidate at the time of FVC meets all specifications as laid down in the advertisement on the basis of which LOI has been issued, then the LOI holder can offer an alternate / new land for construction of godown / showroom, in the advertised location, which will be considered on the grounds of enhanced security / safety, better title (owned instead of leased) convenient location, lower operating cost etc."
13. Thus, all the parameters of evaluation and selection were checked as per the requirement of FVC on 13.11.2014. Subsequent to the request of respondent No.5 for alternate land as per Guidelines read with Industry Note, respondent No.5 was complying with the criteria and hence the respondent HPCL has executed an agreement and also issued appointment letter on 19.10.2015.
14. We have also gone through the impugned order dated 27.07.2016 passed by the Grievance Redressal Committee of the HPCL while rejecting the complaint filed by the petitioner and we have also gone through the reasonings recorded by the learned Single Judge while dismissing the Page 19 of 20 HC-NIC Page 19 of 20 Created On Fri Dec 02 00:38:36 IST 2016 C/LPA/790/2016 CAV JUDGMENT petition and we are in agreement with the same. We are of the opinion that no error is committed by the learned Single Judge while dismissing the petition.
15. In view of the aforesaid discussions, present appeal being devoid of any merit deserves to be dismissed and accordingly it is dismissed. Interim relief granted earlier is vacated.
16. In view of dismissal of main appeal, civil application does not survive and accordingly it stands disposed of.
(R. SUBHASH REDDY, CJ) (VIPUL M. PANCHOLI, J.) Jani Page 20 of 20 HC-NIC Page 20 of 20 Created On Fri Dec 02 00:38:36 IST 2016