Gujarat High Court
Mr.Bunty Dineshbhai Agrawal vs Indian Oil Corporation on 25 July, 2018
Author: A.J.Desai
Bench: A.J.Desai
C/SCA/1068/2016 CAV JUDGMENT
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1068 of 2016
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.J.DESAI sd/-
==========================================================
1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to No
see the judgment ?
2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? No
3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the No
judgment ?
4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law No
as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India or any
order made thereunder ?
==========================================================
MR.BUNTY DINESHBHAI AGRAWAL
Versus
INDIAN OIL CORPORATION
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR PRABHAV A MEHTA(2009) for the PETITIONER(s) No. 1
MR MUNJAAL BHATT, LD.ADVOCATE FOR MRS MAUNA M BHATT(174)
for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 1
NOTICE SERVED(4) for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 2
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.J.DESAI
Date : 25/07/2018
CAV JUDGMENT
1. By way of the present petition under Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged an order / communication dated 12/01/2015 passed by the respondent - Indian Oil Corporation, by which candidature of the petitioner for award of LPG Distributorship Page 1 of 11 C/SCA/1068/2016 CAV JUDGMENT for Ajwa Road, Vadodara city in open category, came to be rejected on the grounds referred therein, the petitioner has made following prayers:
"22(A)Your Lordships may be pleased to issue writ of mandamus and/or writ in the nature of mandamus and/or appropriate writ, order or direction to quash and set aside order dated 12.1.2015 passed by the respondent Corporation being No.SAO/AJW/01; and be further pleased to direct the respondent Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. to grant LPG Distributorship at Ajwa Road, District Vadodara pursuant to advertisement dated 30.9.2013, in accordance with law;
(B) Pending admission and final disposal of the present petition, Your Lordship may kindly be pleased to restrain the respondent Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. and/or its agent and/or servants from issuing re advertisement and/or processing any other application for the purpose of LPG Distributorship at Ajwa Road, District Vadodara pursuant to advertisement dated 30.9.2013, which is subject matter in issue of the present petition;
(C) An exparte adinterim relief in terms of prayer (B) above may kindly be granted;Page 2 of 11 C/SCA/1068/2016 CAV JUDGMENT
(D) Such other and further relief/s as may be deemed just and necessary in the facts and circumstances of the present case may kindly be granted."
2. Pursuant to the notice issued by this Court, respondent- corporation has filed Affidavit-in-reply on 20/04/2016 opposing the prayers made by the petitioner. The petitioner filed Affidavit-in-rejoinder dated 3/12/2016. Respondent-corporation has also filed Further Affidavit-in- reply dated 14/03/2017, by which, he has declared that LPG Distributorship was granted to the successful candidate way back on 24/07/2015. Rejoinder to this further affidavit-in-reply was filed by the petitioner on 29/03/2017.
3. Brief facts, arise from the record, are as under:
That the respondent-corporation issued an advertisement on 30/09/2013 for the purpose of award of LPG Distributorship at various places in State of Gujarat including the area of Ajwa Road, District Vadodara of State of Gujarat. Last date to submit an application for award of LPG Distributorship was fixed on 31/10/2013. The petitioner submitted an application for LPG Distributorship of Ajwa area of Vadodara city along with an undertaking on 30/10/2013, as provided in the advertisement.
Amongst several applicants, application of the petitioner was selected for conducting Field Verification of the Credentials, since the petitioner was selected pursuant to a draw held on 11/08/2014. Accordingly the communication was sent to the petitioner on 12/08/2014 by the respondent- corporation. The petitioner received another communication Page 3 of 11 C/SCA/1068/2016 CAV JUDGMENT dated 12/01/2015 from the respondent- corporation that his application for award of LPG distributorship cannot be accepted on several grounds, which were found by the corporation, subsequent to Field Verification and accordingly his candidature was rejected, though he was chosen by the draw, subject to Field Verification. Hence, this petition.
4. Mr.Prabhav Mehta, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner would submit that the respondent- corporation has committed an error in rejecting the application on various grounds, which were recorded in the impugned order dated 12/01/2015. So far as first ground referred therein is concerned, he would submit that the case of the petitioner has not been considered by the corporation on the ground that the godown for storage of LPG cylinders offered does not meet with the requirement of dimension i.e. 25 Mtrs x 30 Mtrs. as per the eligibility criteria decided by the Central Government, for which, guidelines has been issued for each petroleum company and the lease deed is not a registered document.
So far as third ground referred therein which is similar to ground No.1, is that lease deed for showroom is only notarised and not a registered as on last date of application is concerned.
For this similar ground upon which the case is not considered, he would submit that this reason assigned by the respondent- corporation is required to be viewed in the background of the facts that lease agreements were notarised on 29/10/2013, i.e. prior to submission of the applications and therefore, the respondent- corporation ought to have treated the said document as a valid document.
Page 4 of 11 C/SCA/1068/2016 CAV JUDGMENTHe would submit that in case of Ranjitsinh Jitusinh Zala V/s. Indian Oil Corporation & Anr. delivered by this Court in Special Civil Application No.17577 of 2014 dated 30/03/2015, by relying upon the provision of section 47 of the Registration Act, held that a document is required to be treated as a registered document from the date of its execution and not from the time of its actual registration. He would submit that the said decision was challenged by respondent-corporation by filing Letters Patent Appeal No.963 of 2015, which was dismissed by this Court vide oral judgement dated 23/11/2015. By taking through the observations made in both the orders, he would submit that when the document was notarised, the authority ought not to have rejected the case of the petitioner on that ground.
So far as second reason assigned by the respondent - corporation in the impugned order is concerned, he would submit that father of the petitioner had entered into an agreement to sell of another property being survey no.101 and in view of Guidelines, father being treated as member of the family, Corporation should not have rejected an application on the ground that the document is not a registered sale deed. By making above submissions and by relying upon above decision, he would submit that the petition may be allowed.
5. On the other hand, Mr.Munjaal Bhatt, learned advocate appearing for the respondent-corporation has vehemently submitted that when the application was submitted by the petitioner, he did not disclose the correct facts about different properties referred therein. By taking me Page 5 of 11 C/SCA/1068/2016 CAV JUDGMENT through the application (which is produced by the petitioner himself), he would submit that while furnishing details for LPG godown, the petitioner has mentioned that the lease deed was registered on 29/10/2013, in fact, lease deed was never submitted for registration or till date the same has not been registered with any other authority.
He would submit that dimension referred in the Guidelines is that minimum length would be 25 meters and minimum breath would be 30 meters whereas the godown, which the petitioner offered is having length of 89 meters and breath of 27 meters, which is less than minimum breath of 30 meters, as required in the Guidelines.
He would submit that as far as details of showroom is concerned, notarised document dated 29/10/2013 is produced as if the same is a registered document. In fact the same has been registered on 19/01/2015 i.e. subsequent to the impugned order passed by the authority. He would submit that father of the petitioner had entered into an agreement to sell in respect of another property and the same was notarized but not sent for registration. The case of the petitioner was examined in absence of registration of the document and therefore, the case of the petitioner was rejected.
He would submit that in the case of Ranjitsinh Jitusinh Zala (supra), the petitioner in that case had applied for registration and his lease deed was registered before the candidature of that petitioner was rejected and the petitioner was already eligible and therefore, the case of that petitioner was considered by this Court. He would submit that the petitioner had not even submitted any of the documents for registration when his application was scrutinized and Field Verification was made by the authority. He would further Page 6 of 11 C/SCA/1068/2016 CAV JUDGMENT submit that though the petitioner was informed about rejection of his candidature on 12/01/2015, the present petition came to be filed after a period of one year. Even before this petition was filed, LPG Distributorship in the said area was granted on 24/07/2015 in favour of Mayuriben Apleshkumar Patel after following the criteria as provided in the Guidelines.
By taking me through the clause 6.1(vii) and 6.1(viii) of the Guidelines, he would submit that since the petitioner did not fulfill the criteria, his application was rejected.
6. I have heard learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and perused the documentary evidence produced by the petitioner in support of his case as well as affidavit-in-rely filed by the respondent- corporation and Guidelines issued by the Central Government for selecting LPG Distributorship.
The advertisement itself is clear on the aspect of eligibility criteria of candidate for getting LPG Distributorship. The candidate has to submit an application in the prescribed form and is required to give an Undertaking that whatever information is filled up in the Form, is true and correct. The petitioner had filled up such application along with an Undertaking on 30/10/2013. While filling up details about LPG Godown, he has referred a document dated 29/10/2013 in connection with a land bearing revenue survey No.196/1 of Village: Raval, Taluka: Waghodia, Dist.Vadodara admeasuring 15500 sq.fts as if the same is registered with the authority. Similarly while supplying details about the showroom, he has declared that lease deed dated 29/10/2013 Page 7 of 11 C/SCA/1068/2016 CAV JUDGMENT has been registered. While filing an Undertaking, he has declared and confirmed that the godown, for which, he has entered into lease agreement is as per eligibility criteria of Clause 3 of the advertisement as well as clause 6.1(vii) and 6.1(viii) of the Brochure on Guidelines issued by Indian Oil Corporation.
7. It also made aware in the said application itself that if any information given is found to be incorrect, his candidature shall be liable to be cancelled. Relevant part of Clause 6.1(vii) and 6.1(viii) of the Guidelines, read as under:
6.1(vii) Should own as on the last date for submission of application as specified in the advertisement or corrigendum (if any):
a plot of land of minimum dimensions 25 M x 30 M (within 15 km 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 for construction of godown not meeting the minimum dimensions of 25 M x 30 M will not be considered.
... ... ...
(viii) Own a suitable shop of minimum size 3 metres by 4.5 metre in dimension or a plot of land for construction of showroom of minimum size 3 metres by 4.5 metre as on the last date for submission of application as specified in the advertisement or Page 8 of 11 C/SCA/1068/2016 CAV JUDGMENT corrigendum (if any) at the advertised location or locality mentioned in the advertisement. It should be easily accessible to general public through a suitable approach road.
... ... ..."
8. The meaning of word "own" as referred in Clause 6.1(vii) and (viii), read as under:
'Own' means having ownership title of the property or registered lease agreement for minimum 15 yrs in the name of applicant/ family member (as defined in multiple distributorship norm of eligibility criteria) as on the last date for submission of application as specified in the advertisement or corrigendum (if any). In case of ownership/ coownership by family member(s) as given above, consent in the form of a Notarized Affidavit from the family member(s) will be required.
In case the land is jointly owned by the applicant/ member of 'Family Unit' (as defined in multiple dealership / distributorship norm) with any other person(s) and the share of the land in the name of applicant/ member of the 'Family Unit' meets the requirement of land including the dimensions required, then Page 9 of 11 C/SCA/1068/2016 CAV JUDGMENT that land for godown/ showroom will also qualify for eligibility as own land subject to submission of 'No Objection Certificate' in the form of an Notarised Affidavit from other owner(s)."
9. In view of the above, it is an admitted fact that in the application submitted by the petitioner, he has disclosed about two documents with regard to showroom as well as godown as if the lease deeds are registered and are owing property from his father. However facts remain that neither lease deeds were registered nor the petitioner had applied for registration nor have been registered till date. It is also pertinent to note that agreement was entered into between the father of the petitioner and third party about the property on 20/06/2013, the same was registered on 19/01/2015 subsequent to impugned order dated 12/01/2015.
It is also pertinent to note that the present petition is filed after a period of one year from the date of rejection of his application as well as after LPG Distributorship in the said area was granted by the respondent- corporation way back on 24/07/2015 in favour of Mayuriben Apleshkumar Patel, after following criteria laid down in the Guidelines.
10. In the case of Ranjitsinh Jitusinh Zala (supra), the petitioner in that case had applied for registration on the date when he had executed lease deed i.e. before his candidature was rejected and therefore, the case of that petitioner was considered by this Court. In the present case neither lease deed was registered nor the petitioner had Page 10 of 11 C/SCA/1068/2016 CAV JUDGMENT applied for registration nor registered till date. Hence, the aforesaid case relied upon by the petitioner, would not be applicable in the present case.
11. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any reason to entertain this petition. There is no substance in this petition. This petition is meritless and therefore the same deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. Rule is hereby discharged.
sd/-
[A.J.DESAI, J] *dipti Page 11 of 11