Patna High Court - Orders
Sri Shiv Kumar Singh vs M/S Indian Oil Coporation Ltd. & Ors on 6 August, 2013
Author: Kishore Kumar Mandal
Bench: Kishore Kumar Mandal
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.3107 of 2013
======================================================
1. Sri Shiv Kumar Singh S/O Sri Lakhan Lal Singh R/O Village- Malaypur
Chouhangarh, P.O.+P.S.- Malaypur, Distt.- Jamui
.... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. M/S Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. Having Its Registered Office At G-9,
Ali Yagar Jung Marg, Bandra (East), Mumbai Through Its Managing
Director
2. The General Manager Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.,. Bihar State Office,
5th Floor, Lok Nayak Jai Prakash Bhawan, Dak Bunglow Chowk, Patna-
800001
3. The Deputy General Manager (LPG) Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., Bihar
State Office, 5th Floor, LOK nDY, Lok Nayak Jai Prakash Bhawan, Dak
Bunglow Chowk, Patna-800001.
4. The Senior Manager (LPG-Ops) Bihar State Office, 5th Floor, Lok
Nayak Jai Prakash Bhawan, Dak Bunglow Chowk, Patna - 800001
5. The Ch. Area Manager Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., 1st Floor, Shahi
Bhawan, Exhibition Road, Patna-800001
6. The Area Manager Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., Indane Area Office,
Begusarai, P.O.- Barauni Oil Refinery, Distt.- Begusarai.
.... .... Respondent/s
======================================================
with
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.3243 of 2013
======================================================
1. Shailesh Kumar Singh S/O Satya Narayan Singh R/O Village & P.O.-
Mallehpur, Police Station- Mallehpur, District- Jamui
.... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. M/S Indian Oil Corporation Limited Through Its Managing Director G-
9, Ali Yavar Jung Marg, Bandra (East), Mumbai
2. The Managing Director Indian Oil Corporation Limited (Marketing
Division), Loknayak Bhawan, Dak Bunglow Road, Police Station-Kotwali,
Town & District- Patna
3. The General Manager Indian Oil Corporation Limited (Marketing
Division), Loknayak Bhawan, Dak Bunglow Road, Police Station- Kotwali,
Town & District- Patna
4. The Area Manager Indian Oil Corporation Limited (Marketing
Division), Indane Area Office, Begusarai, P.O.- Barauni Oil Refinery,
District-Begusarai
5. The Selection Committee, M/S Indian Oil Corporation Limited
(Marketing Division), Indane Area Office, Begusarai, P.O.-Barauni Oil
Refinery, District- Begusarai.
.... .... Respondent/s
======================================================
with
Patna High Court CWJC No.3107 of 2013 (6) dt.06-08-2013
Page 2 /9
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.3244 of 2013
======================================================
1. Sarita Singh W/O Neeraj Kumar Singh R/O Village & P.O.- Mallehpur,
Police Station- Mallehpur, District- Jamui
.... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. M/S Indian Oil Corporation Limited Through Its Managing Director G-
9, Ali Yavar Jung Marg, Bandra (East), Mumbai
2. The Managing Director Indian Oil Corporation Limited (Marketing
Division), Loknayak Bhawan, Dak Bunglow Road, Police Station- Kotwali,
Town & District- Patna
3. The General Manager Indian Oil Corporation Limited (Marketing
Division), Loknayak Bhawan, Dak Bunglow Road, Police Station- Kotwali,
Town & District- Patna
4. The Area Manager, Indian Oil Corporation Limited (Marketing
Division), Indane Area Office, Begusarai, P.O.- Barauni Oil Refinery,
District- Begusarai
5. The Selection Committee M/S Indian Oil Corporation Limited
(Marketing Division), Indane Area Office, Begusarai, P.O.- Barauni Oil
Refinery, District- Begusarai.
.... .... Respondent/s
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KISHORE KUMAR
MANDAL
ORAL ORDER
6 06-08-2013All the three writ petitions raise common issue founded on identical/similar facts inasmuch as they are directed against similar/identical order passed by the respondent - Indian Oil Corporation Limited ( for short 'IOCL'). They have, thus, been heard together with the consent of the parties. The order present shall govern them.
Before proceeding further be it noted that married son(s) of the recorded tenant ( land holder) are petitioner(s) in CWJC No. 3107 of 2013 and 3243 of 2013. The great daughter- in -law of the recorded tenant is the petitioner in CWJC No. 3244 Patna High Court CWJC No.3107 of 2013 (6) dt.06-08-2013 Page 3 /9 of 2013.
For the sake of brevity and in order to appreciate the rival submissions, this Court would notice the back ground facts from CWJC No. 3107 of 2013. On 26.2.2012 a combined advertisement (Annexure-1) by the IOCL, HPCL and BPCL ( all Government Oil Companies) was published for selection of distributors under the scheme called Rajiv Gandhi Gramin LPG Vitrak ( RGGLV). Several locations were advertised and applications from eligible persons were invited. The present batch of writ applications relate to location Malaypur figuring at Serial No. 95 of the advertisement which was earmarked for candidates/applicants belonging to the open category. Pursuant to the said advertisement, the petitioner submitted his application form which was duly acknowledged by the respondent- IOCL vide Annexure-2. The Area Manager of the respondent- IOCL vide communication dated 19.9.2012 (Annexure-3) informed the applicant/ petitioner that he has not been found eligible for RGGLV as he did not own land in the advertised location. The petitioner was called upon to submit representation thereagainst. The petitioner filed his representation dated 11.10.2012 (Annexure-4) enclosing therewith a copy of the partition deed to demonstrate his ownership with respect to the land set out in Patna High Court CWJC No.3107 of 2013 (6) dt.06-08-2013 Page 4 /9 the application form. The respondent, on a consideration of the matter, communicated to the petitioner vide communication dated 20.1.13 (Annexure-5) whereby his candidature was finally rejected as the petitioner was held ineligible for RGGLV for not holding his own land at the advertised location. Aggrieved thereby the present writ petition has been filed.
Heard Mr. Ratnesh Kumar Singh for the petitioner appearing in support of CWJC Nos. 3243 of 2013 and 3244 of 2013 and Mr. Pravin Kumar Singh appearing in support of CWJC No. 3107 of 2013.Mr. Anil Kumar Jha, learned senior counsel and Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha appeared for the respondent - IOCL. Parties have exchanged pleadings.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has raised one submission. It has been stated that the definition of family unit undergone substantial amendment vide a decision dated 15.6.2010 (Annexure-6) jointly taken by all the Oil Companies. In spite of the same the relevant clause of the advertisement published on 26.2.12 and the guiding brochure was/were not appropriately amended in line with the said decision which rendered the applicant ineligible on account of the fact that the land offered by the applicant/petitioner was not held to be the owner in view of existing definition of family unit. The respondent, on the other Patna High Court CWJC No.3107 of 2013 (6) dt.06-08-2013 Page 5 /9 hand, has taken a stand that the decision vide Annexure-6 was merely a recommendation by the appropriate authorities of the oil Companies operating under the instruction/guidelines issued by the Govt. of India in the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas. The decision (Annexure-6) was the Industry Record Note which was subsequently approved by the Ministry and the brochure /manual under which the present advertisement was published was modified posterior to the date of publication of the present advertisement. In other words, it has been submitted that by reason of Industry Record Note (Annexure-6) the brochure under which selections were made for RGGLV was not automatically amended.
On perusal of the Industry Record Note (Annexure-
6) it appears that all the appropriate functionaries of the three oil Companies deliberated and agreed to issue a Industry Record Note on 15.6.2010 for modifications/clarifications with regard to selection process of RGGLV in the manual for selection of RGGLV. Various amendments/clarifications required to be made/provided in the manual for the selection of RGGLV. It was further noted at the bottom of the Note (Annexure-6) that the above will be part of the 'Manual for selection of RGGLV'. Relying on the said note, it has been contended that by reason of Patna High Court CWJC No.3107 of 2013 (6) dt.06-08-2013 Page 6 /9 the said Industry Record Note, the Manual for selection of the brochure stood amended/clarified w.e.f. 15.6.2010.
Per contra, it has been submitted on behalf of the respondent- IOCL that the said clarification particularly those contained in clause 7 of the Industry Record Note was not adopted/incorporated by the respondent- IOCL in the selection guidelines/brochure as well as in the impugned advertisement. By filing supplementary counter affidavit, it has been stated that the Industry Record Note dated 15.6.10 taken at the industry meeting of the three oil Companies was the internal clarification. It was just a recommendation. The said recommendation/Industry Record Note was subsequently approved and notified as part of selection guideline/brochure. Even earlier to the present advertisement, the respondent- IOCL published an advertisement for grant of such distributorship in which those modifications were not incorporated. Under the instruction of the Government in the concerned Ministry, the IOCL modified the selection guidelines/brochure on 24.7.12 (Annexure-C) whereby grand parents ( both maternal and paternal) were included in the family unit. It was further expanded in the light of instruction received from the Ministry by the order issued in the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas on 3rd October, 2012 (Annexure D to Patna High Court CWJC No.3107 of 2013 (6) dt.06-08-2013 Page 7 /9 the supplementary Counter affidavit).
On a consideration of the rival submissions made on this issue by the parties, it appears that the Industry Record Note dated 15.6.10 (Annexure-6) was prepared by the functionaries /authorities of the three oil Companies. It called for certain clarifications/modifications in the Manual for selection of RGGLV. Although it was resolved in the said Note that the above will be part of Manual for selection of RGGLV but the same was only an internal decision or at best a recommendation for effecting alteration/amendment in the brochure/guidelines. The respondents have stated in the supplementary counter affidavit that the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas subsequently approved the note and permitted such modification/clarifications/amendment in the guidelines for selection of RGGLV and regular LPG distributors by order contained in letter dated 24.7.12 (Annexure C ) and subsequently by another communication dated 3rd October, 2012 (Annexure- D). No material or document has been placed by the petitioner to demonstrate that the said Industry Record Note was considered and approved by the Government in the concerned Ministry and decision in respect thereof was issued to the oil Companies prior to the publication of the advertisement in question. The Patna High Court CWJC No.3107 of 2013 (6) dt.06-08-2013 Page 8 /9 respondents, on the other hand, have brought on record the two communications issued by the Government of India in the concerned Ministry permitting modification/amendment in the guidelines for selection of RGGLV. In doing so, the Government permitted to effect modifications/alteration in the definition of family unit in the guidelines for selection of RGGLV and regular LPG distributor(s). This Court, in the light of the pleadings on record, would overrule the contention of the petitioner that by reason of Industry Record Note (Annexure-6) the relevant guidelines/brochure for selection of RGGLV automatically stood altered/amended. There is no controversy that if the amendment suggested by Industry Record Note (Annexure-6) is not held effective from the date it was drawn i.e. 15.6.10 then the petitioners would not come within the definition of family unit as contained in relevant guideline/brochure as also the conditions of advertisement (Annexure-1).
It further appears that the petitioner brought out a new case of partition while making representation in the light of the communication dated 19.9.12 (Annexure-3) holding him ineligible and soliciting a representation by the applicant/petitioner. The theory of partition supported by partition document created in presence of Sarpanch was not stated in the Patna High Court CWJC No.3107 of 2013 (6) dt.06-08-2013 Page 9 /9 application. A declaration is required to be made by all the applicants along with the application that there has been no suppression of fact and/or no information supplied therein was incorrect/false. In the event of doing so, the applicant would be declared ineligible and struck off from the list of the applicants.
For the reasons noted above, this Court finds no merit in this application, which is, accordingly, dismissed.
No order as to cost(s).
(Kishore Kumar Mandal, J) Shyam/-