Punjab-Haryana High Court
Hindustan Petroleum Corporation ... vs Haryana Urban Development Authority ... on 11 September, 2013
Author: Satish Kumar Mittal
Bench: Satish Kumar Mittal
C.W.P No.11922 of 2000 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
*****
C.W.P No.11922 of 2000
Date of Decision : 11.09.2013
Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited ...Petitioner
Versus
Haryana Urban Development Authority and others ... Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHAVIR S. CHAUHAN
Present : Mr. Aman Arora, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Mr. Raman Gaur, Advocate,
for respondent Nos.1 to 3.
Mr. A.K.Jain, Advocate,
for respondent No.4.
MAHAVIR S. CHAUHAN, J.
Petitioner-Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited, a Government Company, as defined under Section 617 of the Company Act, 1956, had issued an advertisement on 16.04.1990, in various newspapers, inviting applications for allotment of a retail outlet in the general category to be set up at Batamorh in Faridabad. Raj Rishi Gupta was successful and, vide application dated 03.06.1993 (Annexure P-1), petitioner applied to the respondents for allotment of a suitable site for setting up of the retail outlet. However, Smt. Anita Singhal, respondent No.4, filed a complaint, which led to the recommendation for cancellation of letter of intent issued in favour of Raj Virender Singh Adhikari 2013.09.19 10:58 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh C.W.P No.11922 of 2000 -2- Rishi Gupta and recommendation of name of said Smt. Anita Singhal for offering the retail outlet dealership to her. Accordingly, vide letter dated 01.12.1993, letter of intent in favour of Raj Rishi Gupta was cancelled. However, vide letter dated 06.12.1993, the dealership of retail outlet was offered to Smt. Anita Singhal. After, C.W.P. No.2461 of 1994 brought by Raj Rishi Gupta against the cancellation of letter of intent in his favour was dismissed vide order dated 01.03.1995 by this Court, petitioner renewed his request to the respondents for allotment of a suitable site at Batamorh in Faridabad for setting up a retail outlet and vide letter of allotment dated 10.04.1995 (Annexure P-2), respondent No.2 allotted a site to the petitioner on lease hold basis for a period of 15 years for further allotment to Smt. Anita Singhal, respondent No.4. In the meanwhile, Raj Rishi Gupta challenged order dated 01.03.1995 passed in C.W.P No.2461 of 1994 by way of Letters Patent Appeal No.267 of 1995, wherein, vide order dated 13.10.1995, a Division Bench of this Court came to the conclusion that none of the three applicants was entitled to the allotment and, accordingly, allotment in favour of Anita Singhal, respondent No.4, was quashed.
Thereafter, respondent No.2, vide notice dated 06.09.1996 (Annexure P-3), issued under Section 17 of the Haryana Urban Development Authority Act, 1977 (hereinafter referred to as 'the HUDA Act'), called upon the petitioner to show cause as to why allotment letter dated 10.04.1995 be not cancelled. The notice was duly responded to vide reply dated 24.09.1996 (Annexure P-4), by the petitioner but vide order dated 25.10.1996 (Annexure Virender Singh Adhikari 2013.09.19 10:58 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh C.W.P No.11922 of 2000 -3- P-5), respondent No.2, without considering the reply submitted by the petitioner, cancelled the allotment and refunded the amount of Rs.60,000/- deposited by the petitioner. Petitioner challenged order dated 25.10.1996 (Annexure P-5), vide appeal dated 20.11.1996 (Annexure P-6), stating therein that it was willing to operate the proposed retail outlet on its own as it had already installed a storage tank besides erecting pump island after getting "No Objection Certificate" from the District Magistrate, Faridabad, and basic approval from the Department of Explosives. The appeal filed by the petitioner came to be disposed of vide order dated 02.02.1998 (Annexure P-7) in the following terms:-
"......... In view of the above, the site in question is hereby restored to the Company i.e. M/s Hindustan Petroleum Corporation, New Delhi with the condition that the company will clear all the previous arrears of rent within 30 days from the date of issue of this order and rent Rs.5,000/- p.m. will be charged upto 4.4.2000 and other terms and conditions will be issued by the respondent lateron. The new rent will be applicable as and when the details of terms and conditions issued by the respondent. It is further directed that the company will operate either itself or through contract consultant and not through any dealer."
The petitioner did not feel happy about the condition put in the appellate order to the effect that the petitioner would operate the retail outlet either itself or through contract consultant and not through any dealer and thus, in order to get this condition deleted, petitioner filed an application on 18.02.1998 (Annexure P-8), seeking review of the order dated 02.02.1998 Virender Singh Adhikari 2013.09.19 10:58 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh C.W.P No.11922 of 2000 -4- (Annexure P-7). As nothing was done in the review application, petitioner brought before this Court C.W.P. No.3989 of 2000 titled as 'Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited Vs. Haryana Urban Development Authority and others', wherein vide order dated 24.04.2000, this Court directed respondent No.1 (in C.W.P. No.3989 of 2000), i.e., The Chief Administrator, HUDA, Panchkula, to dispose of the said review application and, accordingly, vide order dated 21.06.2000 (Annexure P-19), the review application was dismissed by observing as under:-
"I have gone through the facts of the case and does not find, the request of the Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. To restore the offer of allotment of petrol pump site measuring 900 sq.mtrs. in Sector-20-B, Faridabad feasible of acceptance, especially when the letter of intent offering dealership in favour of Smt. Anita Singhal, was cancelled by Hon'ble Courts, and the HPCL thereafter itself failed to make use of the opportunity, offered to them to run company owned/company operated retail outlet. Thus, I also do not find any reason to interfere into the orders dated 25.10.96 and 2.2.98 passed by the Estate Officer, HUDA, Faridabad and the designated Appellate Authority, Administrator, HUDA, Faridabad respectively. The representationist company may be informed accordingly. To impugn order dated 21.06.2000 (Annexure P-19), petitioner has invoked extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this Court by way of the instant writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India.
Respondents have filed a counter stating that the impugned order dated 21.06.2000 (Annexure P-19) has been passed by the 1st respondent after Virender Singh Adhikari 2013.09.19 10:58 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh C.W.P No.11922 of 2000 -5- taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the case and, as such, the same cannot be interfered with.
We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record of the case.
Though, it is argued on behalf of the petitioner that the condition imposed by the appellate authority in order dated 02.02.1998 (Annexure P-7) to the effect that the petitioner can operate the retail outlet itself or through a contract consultant only and not through any dealer is unreasonable and ought to have been deleted in review application but the reviewing authority, i.e., respondent No.1 has failed to appreciate the matter in true perspective and has declined to review the order on nonest ground, but a perusal of the record would show that as per petitioner's own saying it had offered to operate the retail outlet itself, so it was on this averment that the appellate authority restored the site to it with a condition that the outlet would be operated by the petitioner itself or through a contract consultant and not through some dealer. That being so, the petitioner cannot be heard to make a grievance about the afore-stated condition imposed in the appellate order and in view of the rejection of review application by the 1st respondent.
In the circumstances, the writ petition must fail and is hereby dismissed. However, from the circumstances appearing on record, it comes out that one of the conditions in the appellate order was with regard to clearance of all previous arrears of rent within 30 days by the petitioner but could not be complied with in view of the fact that the petitioner continued corresponding Virender Singh Adhikari 2013.09.19 10:58 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh C.W.P No.11922 of 2000 -6- with the respondents for deposit of the arrears and waited for disposal of its review application filed by it for review of order dated 02.02.1998 (Annexure P-7) and had approached this Court for seeking direction that the review application be disposed of. Therefore, we direct that the period of 30 days, allowed to the petitioner to clear the arrears of rent etc., shall be reckoned from today.
No costs.
(SATISH KUMAR MITTAL) (MAHAVIR S. CHAUHAN)
JUDGE JUDGE
11.09.2013
adhikari
Virender Singh Adhikari
2013.09.19 10:58
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
High Court Chandigarh