Allahabad High Court
Ansar Ali vs Union Of India And 2 Others on 13 August, 2019
Bench: Ramesh Sinha, Ajit Kumar
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD AFR Court No. - 1 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 24484 of 2019 Petitioner :- Ansar Ali Respondent :- Union Of India And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Abhitab Kumar Tiwari Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I.,Ishan Shishu,Vikas Budhwar Connected with Case :- WRIT - C No. - 26050 of 2019 Petitioner :- Puneet Kumar Singh Respondent :- Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Tarun Agrawal Counsel for Respondent :- Vikas Budhwar,Arvind Kumar,Vijay Kumar Rai And Case :- WRIT - C No. - 24673 of 2019 Petitioner :- Ram Babu Respondent :- Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Satendra Kumar Sharma Counsel for Respondent :- Chandrika Patel And Case :- WRIT - C No. - 25920 of 2019 Petitioner :- Rajyavardhan Singh And Another Respondent :- Government Of India And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Santosh Dwivedi Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I. And Case :- WRIT - C No. - 24640 of 2019 Petitioner :- Hanuman Respondent :- Union Of India And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Dharmendra Singh Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I.,Ishan Shishu,Nishant Mehrotra And Case :- WRIT - C No. - 24580 of 2019 Petitioner :- Gaurav Kumar Respondent :- Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Ashish Malhotra Counsel for Respondent :- Vikas Budhwar Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha,J.
Hon'ble Ajit Kumar,J.
Heard Sri Ravi Kant, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Tarun Agarwal, learned Advocate, Sri A.K.Tiwari, Sri Santosh Dwivedi, Sri S.K.Sharma, Sri Dharmendra Singh and Sri Ashish Malhotra, learned counsels for the petitioners and Sri Vikas Budhwar, learned Advocate for the respondent Corporation and learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Union of India.
All these petitions since raise common question of law, have been clubbed together and are being heard and decided by this common judgment and order.
All the petitioners in their respective petitions have raised grievance against the order passed by the authority of Petroleum Corporation holding their candidature to be ineligible after field verification of the land and placing their candidature in category/ Group-3 which according to the guidelines are to be considered subject to condition that the other competing candidates do not qualify in first two categories called Group 1 and Group 2.
The basic grievance raised by the petitioners is that the order impugned by which their candidature has come to be rejected in the first two categories holding them ineligible, is absolutely non- speaking and cryptic order as ground assigned is Land Evaluation Committee visited the site and found the same not meet the required norms.
According to learned Advocates appearing on behalf of the petitioners passing of such an order having adverse consequences upon the interest and rights of the petitioners as competing contender, is arbitrary and hit by Article 14 of the Constitution. It is also argued that even within the legitimate sphere of authority taking administrative decision, the decision must reflect consideration of claims on merits. In a nutshell, the action of the respondent is sought to be judicially reviewed on the ground of lack of just and fair play at the end of the authorities while evaluating the candidature of the petitioners in connection with respective advertisements for allotment of retail outlet dealership by oil companies.
Before we proceed to examine the legality of the action assailed in this bunch of writ petitions, it is necessary to refer to the facts of the case in order to appreciate the controversy on facts. Since in all the writ petitions, more or less facts are identical, for convenience we are referring to the facts as detailed out in Writ Petition No. 24484 of 2019 filed by one Ansar Ali. We have further reasons to refer to the facts of this case because learned counsel for the respondents Sri Budhwar has placed instructions obtained by him in respect of this case only.
Respondent Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. (for short "Petroleum Corporation") issued an advertisement on 25.11.2018 inviting online applications for retail outlet dealership at a site between Kilometer Stone 26 and 29 at Meerut-Shamli Raod , National Highway 709A (Old SH-82) in district Meerut in the open category. Last date for submission of form was 24th December, 2018.
Out of three locations for which applications were invited under the above advertisement, the petitioner made an application for the site at serial no. 1538 of the advertisement for which selection was to be done by way of draw of lots and the total area of the land required was 1575 square meters with a frontage of 35 metres wide and depth of 45 meters. While petitioner applied online by way of online submission of application, the petitioner offered plot no. 1117 situate at village Baparasi, Pargana, Tehsil and District Meerut with area of 1575 square meters and with 35 meters and with a 35 meters wide frontage and 45 meters in depth as the said land fell on the location for which advertisement was made.
The land offered by the petitioner was obtained by him on the basis of a registered lease deed for a period of 20 years executed by original tenure holder, Kartar Singh on 24.12.2018 itself, copy whereof has been filed as Annexure 3 to the writ petition.
In the draw of lots that was held as per scheduled on 11th February,, 2019, the petitioner came to be selected and the Corporation intimated selection vide letter dated 16th February, 2019 and the respondent Corporation called it out to be preliminary intimation of the selection for retail outlet dealership. The letter is reproduced hereunder.
"Ref: 15457034924695 Date: 16-Feb-2019 To, Mr. ANSAR ALI Address: VILLAGE KALCHHINA, TEHSIL MODINAGAR, U.P. District :GHAZIABAD State:UTTAR PRADESH Pin Code: 245304 Dear Sir, SUBJECT: RESULT OF DRAW OF LOTS (FOR RETAIL OUTLET DEALERSHIP)
Name of Location : BETWEEN KM STONE 26 TO 20 ON MEERUT SHAMLI ROAD NH 709A (OLD SH-82), Category OPEN Name of District: MEERUT, State UTTAR PRADESH We are pleased to inform you that based on DRAW OF LOTS for selection of Retail Outlet dealership for the above location held on 11-Feb-2019 at the venue BROADWAY INN, 1/9, GARH ROADH, MEERUT (UP) 250 004 (CONTACT NO. 0121-4200300 at 09:30 AM you have been declared as selected.
This is only a preliminary intimation towards your selection for Retail Outlet dealership. However, the award of the dealership is subject to compliance of terms and conditions of the Corporation in this regard.
Thanking you.
Yours faithfully For Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd.
SANJAY NAGPAL Heard of Regional Office Meerut Retail Regional Office, Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited, 495/1/2Nd Floor, Rpg Tower, University Road, Mangal Pandey Nagar, Meerut-250004 0121-3323915,9412221541, 941222544"
Yet another letter issued in the same date further required to the petitioner to remit an amount of Rs. 50,000/- towards initial security and to supply his documents within 10 days at the address mentioned in the letter. The main document regarding which controversy has arisen relates to item no. 4,5 and 6, however, for convenience we are reproducing the entire letter dated 16th February, 2019.
Ref:15457034924695 Date: 16th Feb-2019 To, Mr. ANSAR ALI Address:VILLAGE KALCHHINA, TEHSIL MODINAGAR, DISTRICT GHAZIABAD, U.P. District: GHAZIABAD State:UTTAR PRADESH Pin Code: 245304
Subject: Application for award of RO dealership at BETWEEN KM STONE 26 TO 29 ON MEERUT-SHAMLI ROAD NH709A (OLD SH-82)District MEERUT Under OPEN category Advertised on 25-Nov-2018 Dear Sir, Please refer to your online application reference number 15457034924695 submitted for award of the subject RO dealership.
Please also refer to the Brochure on Retail Outlet dealer selection application for the subject location and available on the portal https://www. Petrolpumdealerchayan.in/.
We are pleased to inform you that you have been declared as successful candidate in the DRAW OF LOTS conducted on 11-Feb-2019 for selection of RO dealership at the subject location.
You are requested to remit online Rs. 50000.00, towards initial Security Deposit (To pay click here or login to https://www. Petrolpumdealerchayan.in/.) and submit the set of documents as specified below within 10 days at the address mentioned below for processing your application for award of Retail Outlet dealership at the above location.
Documents applicable for all category:
1. Notarized Affidavit by the applicant as per Appendix-X A/ X B (standard Affidavit), as applicable
2. Proof of age (date of birth) i.e.- Self Attested copy of 10th Std. Board Certificate / Secondary School Leaving Certificate / Birth Certificate / Passport/ Identity card issued by Election Commission/Affidavait for age (Original).
3. Prrof of education qualification i.e. -Self Attested Copy of Certificate of passing 10th Std. Issued by a Board / School conducting the examination or equivalent.
4. Appendix-III B (Advocate's letter) along with Appendix-III A (for offer of land) if applicable.
5. Copy of land documents in support of ownership/lease rights.
6. Sketch of the offered land with dimension.
7. Proof of SKO allocation & copy of dealership agreement in case you are an existing unviable SKO Dealer.
Verification of all attested photo copies shall be done with the original documents during the Field Verification of Credentials (FVC).
It is expected that you are in possession of original documents wherever photo copies of documents are submitted.
Please note that your candidature is liable to be canclled in case initial Security Deposit is not remitted or the documents listed above are not submitted within 10 days from the date of this intimation.
Your candidature is liable to be rejected if you are not able to present the original documents at the time of FVC on the designated date and time or during the FVC if it is found that the information submitted by you in your online application is false/ incorrect/misrepresented affecting your eleigibility.
Note: Documents can be submitted at the below mentioned address of the Regional Office between 10 am to 5 pm on any working day. In case the last date for submission of documents happens to be a Holiday for the Regional Office, Documents can be submitted on the next working day.
Thanking you Yours faithfully For Hindustan petroleum corporation Ltd.
SANJAY NAGPAL Heard of Regional Office Meerut Retail Regional Office, Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited, 495/1 2Nd Floor, RPG Tower, University Road, Mangal Pandey Nagar, Meerut-250004 0121-3323915, 9412221541, 941222544"
(Emphasis added) The petitioner deposited the amount of security as required under the letter above and submitted all the documents within time before respondent no. 3. The petitioner then was intimated vide letter dated 24th May, 2009 that Field Verification of Credentials (for short "FVC") will be done on 3rd April, 2019 on the site of land and the petitioner was required to be present with documents relating to the land. Field verification was done regarding credentials and also spot verification of the land in presence of the petitioners and then thereafter no communication was made with petitioner by Corporation for more than three months and while petitioner was expecting good news, he was surprised by the Corporation by issuing a letter dated 21st June, 2019 informing that his candidature has not been found eligible as Land Evaluation Committee after visiting the site on the scheduled date, did not find the land to be meeting the required norms.
For better appreciation of the order and the legal arguments as we have quoted in the initial part of the judgment, we reproduced the order impugned dated 21st June, 2019 passed by respondent Petroleum Corporation.
"Ref: 15457034924695 Date: 21-Jun-2019 To, Mr. Ansar Ali Address:VILLAGE KALCHHINA, TEHSIL MODINAGAR, DISTRICT GHAZIBAD, U.P. District: GHAZIBAD State:UTTAR PRADESH Pin Code: 245304
Subject: Application for award of RO dealership at BETWEEN KM STAONE 26 TO 29 ON MEERUT SHAMLI ROAD NH709A (OLD SH-82) DISTRICT MEERUT under OPEN category Advertised on 25 Nov, 2018 Dear Sir,
1. Please refer to your application received by us application form No. 15457034924695 on the subject and our letter dated 24-Mar-2019 informing you about the visit of Land Evaluation committee of evaluation of your offered land.
2. This is to inform you that the Land Evaluation Committee visited the site offered by you on 03-Apr-2019 and found the same to be not meeting the required norms.
3. In view of above, we regret to inform you that your candidature has been found ineligible. However, your candidature may get considered for selection along with Group 3 applicants as per guidelines.
Thanking you Yours faithfully, For Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd.
Sanjay Nagpal Head of Regional Office Meerut Retail Regional Office, Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited, 495/1, 2Nd Floor, Rpg Tower University Road, Mangal Pandey nagar, Meerut-250004 9412221544"
(Emphasis added) At the stage, we also find it necessary to refer the guidelines issued by Petroleum Corporation for selection of retail outlet dealership relating to the land required by the Corporation for setting up retail outlet petrol pump. The relevant extract of the guidelines is reproduced hereunder:
"(V) Hkwfe ¼lHkh Jsf.k;ksa dks ykxw½% vkosnu QkeZ esa vkosndks n~okjk izLrkfor Hkwfe vFkok vizLrkfor Hkwfe ds vk/kkj ij vkosndksa dks 3 lewgksa esa fuEukuqlkj oxhZd`r fd;k tk,xk%& xzqi 1% vkosndksa ds ikl foKkfir yksds'ku@,fj;k esa ekfydkuk gd esa@U;wure 19 o"kZ 11 ekg dh vof/k ds fy, nh?kZ vof/k yht ij Hkwfe dk mi;qDr VqdM+k gks ;k rsy foi.ku daiuh n~okjk fn;s x, foKkiu ds vuqlkj gksA xzqi 2% vkosndksa ds ikl mi;qDr Hkwfe [kjhnus ds fy, ;k U;wure 19 o"kZ 11 ekg dh vof/k ds fy, nh?kZ vof/k yht dk iDdk izLrko gks ;k rsy foi.ku daiuh n~okjk fn;s x;s foKkiu ds vuqlkj gksA xzqi 3% ftu vkosndksa us vius vkosnu esa Hkwfe izLrkfor ugha dh gSA xzqi 3 ds rgr vkosnu rHkh izkslSl fd, tk,axs@Hkwfe dk izLrko nsus dks dgk tk,xk tc dksbZ ik= vkosnd ugha ik;k tkrk gS ;k xzqi 1 vkSj 2 ds rgr fdlh vkosnd dk p;u ugha gksrk gSA ;fn xzqi 1 vkSj xzqi 2 ds varxZr vkus okys lHkh vkosndksa dh izLrkfor Hkwfe mi;qDr ugha ik;h tkrh gS ;k vis{kkvksa dks iwjk ugha djrh gS rc bu xzqi 1 vkSj xzqi 2 ds vkosndksa ds lkFk&lkFk xzqi 3 ds vkosndksa ¼ftUgksaus vkosnu ds lkFk Hkwfe izLrkfor ugha dh gS½ dks rsy foi.ku daifu;ksa n~okjk ,l,e,l@bZesy ds ek/;e ls lwpuk i= tkjh gksus dh rkjh[k ls 3 ekg ds vanj foKkfir LFkkuksa@nk;js esa mi;qDr Hkwfe dk izLrko nsus dks dgk tk,xkA ;fn vkosnd fu/kkZfjr vof/k esa mi;qDr Hkwfe miyC/k djus esa foQy jgrk gS ;k miyC/k djk;s tkus okyh Hkwfe fu/kkZfjr ekunaMks dks iwjk ugha djrh gS rks vkosnu fujLr dj fn;k tk,xkA izLrkfor Hkwfe ds fy, vU; 'krsZa fuEukuqlkj gS%& ¼d½ vkosnu dh rkjh[k dks vkosnd ds ikl Hkwfe miyC/k gksuh pkfg, vkSj foKkiu dh rkjh[k dks ;k mlds ckn dh rkjh[k esa ¼ijarq vkosnu dh rkjh[k ds ckn ugh½ 19 o"kZ 11 ekg ds U;wure yht ¼tSlk dh lacaf/kr rsy daiuh n~okjk foKkiu fd;k x;k gks½ ij gksuh pkfg,A ¼[k½ ;fn izLrkfor Hkwfe nh?kZ vof/k yht ij gS rks dkWiZl QaM ;kstuk] vU; dkWifj'ku ds LokfeRo ds LFkyksa ¼^^,^^@^^lhlh^^ LFky½ ds vUrxZr foKkfir yksds'kuksa ds fy, yht djkj esa mi&yht dk izko/kku gksuk pkfg,A"
(Emphasis added) Before we proceed further to examine the guidelines and test the order passed by the respondent Corporation for rejecting the candidature of the petitioner, we would also like to refer to the instructions placed before this Court by Sri Vikash Budhwar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Corporation in the form a piece of paper. This piece of paper is nothing but field verification report regarding lay out of land offered by petitioner in respect of the retail outlet dealership at serial no. 1538. The report carries as we peruse, three details as far as spot inspection is concerned: firstly the address of the site condition land; Secondly marked details of the site i.e. distance from the nearest kilometer stone or any other permanent land mark; and thirdly a hand sketched lay out of the land.
After these three collumns the recital in the report is in the form of undertaking by the applicant. Undertaking is typed one in the report which is on a printed format and bears signatures of the petitioner and three members of the Land Evaluation Committee except for the hand sketched map. The entire narrative of the report dated 25th March, 2019 is reproduced hereunder for its better appreciation:
Layout sketch of land offered by the appellant Location District: Meerut Sr. No. 1538 State: U.P Category: Open Land Details: Khasra No. 1117, village Baparasi, Tehsil Sardana, District Meerut Name of Applicant: Ansar Ali Site Address (As mentioned in the application form): Khasra No. 1117, Villlage Baparsi, Tehsil Sardhana, District Meerut.
Landmark details (distance from nearest Km stone or any other permanent landmark/ structure nearest to the starting point of the site) Layout Sketch of land offered by the candidate with approximate dimensions (All dimensions to be mentioned in Meters.) (Hand Sketched lay out) I hereby confirm that the above mentioned details of the plot offered by me are correct and site has been inspected by the Company Officials as mentioned below. Further I also confirm that:
1. Offered land is of required dimension and abutting the Road boundary, after leaving Right of Way (ROW) line of the road.
II. The offered land is also not notified for acquisition.
III. Land owner is in possession of the land from the beginning/ edge of ROW line.
I also understand that in case any of the details mentioned above are found incorrect or the site is found unsuitable by the Corporation for any reason whatsoever then I would have no claim on the dealership of this location.
Name & Signature of the applicant/Representative of applicant
Date: 25/03/2019 Member 1 Member 2 Member 3
(In case of NH)
From the perusal of the above report as quoted above, it transpires that the site of the land was visited on 25th March, 2019 and not on 3rd April, 2019 as stated in letter dated 24th March, 2019 annexure 5 to the writ petition. From the above facts as instruction have been paced before this Court one thing at least comes out very clear that no spot inspection was carried out on 3rd April, 2019 as claimed by the respondents, it was in fact conducted on 25th March, 2019 which bears signatures of the present petitioner, Ansar Ali and endorsement of the date is 25th March, 2019. Since petitioner has not questioned the spot inspection conducted on 25th March, 2019 and has not taken stand that no spot inspection was conducted on 3rd April, 2019 and since the documents to spot inspection bears signature of petitioner we presume that it is on 25th March, 2019 with the consent of the petitioner that spot inspection was done by the Land Evaluation Committee and proceed to decide the case on the said basis.
From the perusal of the guidelines as quoted hereinabove in this judgment, we find that so far as offer of land is concerned three categories have been provided for; Category One is called Group 1 in which land offered must be claimed by the applicant with minimum lease of 19 years and 11 months of the land or piece of land on the site advertised by the Corporation; category two called as Group 2 where applicant has firm proposal of lease to be executed in his favour for a minimum period of 19 years and 11 months; and category three is called as Group-3 is in respect of the candidates who have not made any offer of land. It is further provided under the guidelines that applications under Group 3 shall be processed and will be assigned to give offer of land when no candidate is found eligible and not selected in Group 1 and Group 2 category. Since petitioner in the present case had registered lease in his favour of the land in question for period of 20 years at annual premium of Rs. 6,000/- as rent executed on 24.12.2018 and document thereof was submitted by the petitioner as offer of land, it amounted a firm offer of land in Group 1 category. In draw of lots, the petitioner was selected and was directed to submit documents which petitioner submitted within the prescribed time. The Land Evaluation Committee thereafter proceeded to evaluate credentials of the petitioner as well as the land situation on the spot so as to get the first hand assessment as to whether land of which offer has been made by candidate is an ideal site to set a petrol pump or not.
From the bare reading of the report of spot inspection which has been placed before the Court and quoted hereinabove in this order, we find that the address of the land offered and the land mark of Kilometer stone between 27 to 28 is same as is required under the advertisement and in the lay out sketched map is of the land offered by the present applicant with proximate dimension has been shown. The report does not disclose as to how the measurement has been carried out of the spot, nor it disclose as to what scale was applied to measure the land to justify particularly the dimensions in respect of frontage and depth as opening area and the depth area of the land in question at the located site on a piece of A-4 size paper.
From bare perusal of the report, we find that opening of the plot offered by the petitioner is 35 meters on front on national highway no. 709-A and the depth is shown as 45 meters. What further we find that the distance between crossing of 101 meters. If we compare this report with that of the details as contained in advertisement for serial no. 1358 land site in question, we find that minimum dimension required is in respect of frontage, depth and total area in column no. 8. There is no other depth or area or distance required, so according to us as far as dimension part is concerned vide column 8, requirement of measurement is same as has come to be reported in the report in hand sketched map. The report is signed by three members of the committee but we do not know who at the three members was expert with technical skills to conduct measurement and who prepared the hand sketched map in the report, but we noticed that the report is in fact in the form of format in column nos. 1,2 and 3 encircled by a rectangle, a blank space required to be filled in only and rest of the contents are in an already typed format including the undertaking on which applicant has to sign. Four conditions which are part of the undertaking are: that offered land as per required dimension must be abutting the road boundary with the offered land after leaving right of way line of the road; the offered land is not under any notification for acquisition; the applicant/land owner is in possession of the land; and there is other land including Government land between the land offered and the right of way. If any of the details as noted above is found to be incorrect, the site was to be held unsuitable by the Corporation and the applicant would not have any claim for the dealership on such location.
In the present case, we do not find in the report that any of the four conditions were violated nor, we do find any remarks coming in the report that land was not suitable for a/b/c on d reason but according to the learned counsel for the respondent this report has formed the basis of the cancellation of the candidature of the petitioner as ineligible one.
The above being factual position emerging out in the present case we proceed to test the order impugned and the legal arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioners.
From the better perusal of the order that has been passed holding the petitioner not to be eligible as far as his candidature is concerned, the retail outlet dealership, it is clear that the Land Evaluation Committee vested on 3rd April, 2019 and found the same not meeting required norms. We have not been apprised of any report dated 3rd April, 2019 by learned counsel for the respondent though he was given time to have instructions in the matter and the instruction that has been placed before us is report dated 25th March, 2019 as we have quoted above and have also discussed hereinabove. This report does no record any recital in the form of opinion of expert regarding situation of and and its suitability is nothing but contains details of land and a hand sketched map prepared on the spot with the details of dimensions and measurement.
The ground of attack is that the order is absolutely non speaking as to what is the report of the Land Evaluation Committee or what is the opinion of Land Evaluation Committee in its assessment, that has rendered site offered not meeting the required norms, have not been disclosed in the order impugned. It is alleged that the order has been passed on the basis of same report of the Land Evaluation Committee so therefore it was incumbent upon the respondent authority to have discussed the report in this order to make it not only speaking order but reasoned order as well.
As we have noticed that it is the Land Evaluation Committee's report dated 25th March, 2019 that has been placed before us and there is no instruction regarding any report dated 3rd April, 2019, we can safely conclude that there was no such report at all and the report, before Corporation, was dated 25th March, 2019 only. From the report dated 25th March, 2019, we do not find any lacking of requirement in terms of the dimensions and measurement of the land in question while comparing it with required dimensions and the measurement provided vide column 8 of the located site at serial no. 1538 of the advertisement the required opening of the plot 35 meter wide is there in the report and depth of 45 meter which is also there in the report. There was requirement of total measurement of the land in terms of area as 1575 of plot of and the area of land offered is not disputed in the report. The distance of situation where plot is required to situate is also not disputed in the report. The area and the plot is totally identifiable as per the report. We further find that all four conditions mentioned in the report in the form of undertaking by the petitioner are also met and there is nothing in the report adverse to the same. The offered land is not under any notice of compulsory acquisition; the possession of the land holder is not disputed and there is no other land between land offered and the right of way (ROW). Thus if said report was placed before the authority, we fail to understand why the said report was not considered and if any further report was obtained as has come to be mentioned in the order dated 3rd April, 2019, both the reports should have been discussed, evaluated and compared as a rule of procedure by the respondents before rejecting the candidature of the petitioner holding him ineligible on the basis of the report of the Land Evaluation Committee subsequently obtained on 3rd April, 2019 if any.
In our considered opinion, justice and fair play required this procedure to be mandatory one. Even otherwise, we are in the rule of law society and public sector undertakings, or Corporations are more under bounden duty to discharge function in just and fair manner. Every subject in a welfare state is looking for equality in terms of equal treatment if identically placed. If petrol pump dealership is being offered by public sector undertakings from open markets inviting applications from the people and the candidates come to be selected in the draw of lots, the cancellation of candidature of such candidates should be preceded by a thorough examination of documents, proper evaluation and proper spot inspection of the land and due verification of the credentials placed before Corporation in respect the land site offered by such candidates. We may further hold that in such matters where on a printed format undertaking is taken and that too in a language with which locals may not be well conversant as being not highly qualified as in the present case language was in English, it was an obligation cast upon authority of a public sector undertaking to have apprised at least petitioners of the grounds and thus in that process the petitioners should have been supplied with the report so as to apprise them of the details and the reasons assigned by the Land Evaluation Committee for holding that site offered was not suitable for the reasons a/b/c or d. However, all this we find lacking in the orders impugned in all these writ petitions.
It has been held in case of Chairman, Disciplinary Authority, Rani Lakshmi Bai Kshetriya Gramin Bank v. Jagdish Sharan Varshney and Others (2009) 4 SCC 240 that unless reasons are disclosed how can the person know whether authority has applied its mind or not ? Giving all reasons minimize the chances of arbitrariness. Again in the case of Punjab State Electricity Board and Others v. Jit Singh (2009) 13 SCC 118, the Apex Court while testing the order passed by the State Electricity Board which was assailed on the ground of arbitrary one as being sans reasons, observed that fair play requires recording precise and cogent reasons when an order affects rights of the citizen and again in the case of Dharampal Satyapal Limited v. Deputy commissioner of Central Excise, Gauhati and Others (2015) 8 SCC 519 the Apex Court held that the principles of natural justice developed over a period of time and which is still in vogue and valid even today are: (i) rule against bias, i.e. nemo debet esse iudex in causa sua; and (ii) opportunity of being heard to the party concerned, i.e. audi alteram partem. These are known as principles of natural justice. To these principles a third principle is added, which is of recent origin. It is duty to give reasons in support of decision, namely, passing of a 'reasoned order'.
The Court further proceeded to hold that in order to secure fairness and to prevent miscarriage of justice, the authorities discharging function should follow very accurate and proceedings conforming to the norms of natural justice and the Court observed that primarily these basics of dispensation of justice though were mandatory for discharge for judicial and quasi judicial functions but later have come to be extended even to those who are involved in administrative decision making and may not necessarily discharging judicial or quasi judicial functions. The Court observed that these principles are a kind of code of fair administrative procedure. In this context, procedure is not a matter of secondary importance as it is only by procedural fairness shown in the decision making that decision becomes acceptable. In its proper sense, thus, natural justice would mean the natural sense of what is right and wrong.
An order without well founded reason is like skeleton which is neither identifiable for want of a body cover nor, enforceable for want of character it must have in it essentially. In order to infuse life in an order to make it legally enforceable it must have the characteristic of being taken as a reasoned and speaking one to pass the test of Article 14 of the Constitution, one of the most acclaimed and cherished of the fundamental rights recognized under the Indian Constitution. What is, therefore, fundamental for an order or an action to make it sustainable is to ensure it to be devoid of any arbitrariness.
In case of Rashmi Metaliks Limited and Another v. Kolkata Metropolitan Development Authority and Others, (2013) 10 SCC 95, considering the aspect of judicial review in case of administrative action, the Apex Court held that if the reasons are not contained in the order, it is bad.
Again in the case of T.P.Senkumar. IPS v. Union of India and Others, (2017) 6 SCC 801, the Apex Court has held that an administrative order must be judged by reason mentioned therein and cannot supplemented by the reason through affidavit or otherwise in subsequent court proceedings.
Further in the case of Mangalam Organics Ltd. v. Union of India (2017) 7 SCC 221 vide taking note of the limited scope of judicial review of administrative action, the Court did carve out an exception if an order is passed with /an extraneous purpose, upon extraneous consideration or arbitrary without applying its mind to the relevant consideration or were it is not guided by norms which are relevant to the object already achieved under Artice 14 of the Constitution.
In view of above settled legal position as have come to be emerged and applying the same to the present set of facts involved in the case in hand and in the connected matters, we find that the orders passed by the authorities in respective petitions are not only non speaking unreasoned and cryptic one but also cannot otherwise pass test of Article 14 of the Constitution.
In our considered opinion while rule of personal hearing may not be a compulsory rule in every case but rule of assigning reason while passing an order on the basis of some adverse report is mandatory for the authority to make the order legally enforceable.
Accordingly, we are setting aside the orders impugned canceling the candidature of the petitioners in respective writ petitions for retail outlet dealership.
We are accordingly further directing the authorities to revisit the matter and reconsider the reports after supplying copy thereof to the respective petitioners and inviting their objections upon the same. Necessary requisite document as have been directed hereinabove shall be supplied to the petitioner within period of two weeks from the date of production of certified copy of this order and the petitioners shall be at liberty to file their objection within further period of two weeks and after receiving objection of the respective petitioners, respondent shall proceed to decide the matter within further period of four weeks by means of reasoned and speaking order.
However, we may hasten to add that in all these writ petitions the only ground taken for passing the order is that the offer of land made by the respective petitioners did not meet the requirement as per brochure and, therefore, it will be open for the respondent to revisit the matter from that angle only and, if otherwise, after due evaluation and meeting objection of the petitioners, they are found suitable, their candidature on other norms shall not be cancelled on any fresh ground.
With the aforesaid observations and directions, writ petitions are allowed, with no order as to cost.
Order Date :- 13.8.2019
Sanjeev
(Ajit Kumar,J.) (Ramesh Sinha,J.)