Punjab-Haryana High Court
Smt. Dev Prabha Sharma vs Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd on 10 February, 2012
Author: Satish Kumar Mittal
Bench: Satish Kumar Mittal, T.P.S. Mann
L.P.A. No.1552 of 2011 (O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH.
L.P.A. No.1552 of 2011 (O&M)
Date of Decision:- February 10, 2012
Smt. Dev Prabha Sharma
... Appellant
Versus
Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd., Mumbai
and others
... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE T.P.S. MANN
Present: Mr.Vishal Goel, Advocate,
for the appellant.
Mr. Raman Sharma, Advocate,
for respondents No.1 and 2.
None for respondent No.3.
Mr. Deepak Sibal, Advocate,
for respondent No.4.
Satish Kumar Mittal, J.
This Letters Patent Appeal has been directed against the order dated May 03, 2011 passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby the writ petition (CWP No.434 of 2010) filed by the appellant for issuing a writ of prohibition commanding the official respondents not to make allotment of LPG Distributorship at Piyala in favour of respondents No.3 or 4, who have been shown in the select panel, on the ground that they have not been properly assessed while considering their merits, has been dismissed. .
Though this appeal is barred by limitation, and along with the L.P.A. No.1552 of 2011 (O&M) -2- appeal, the appellant has filed an application (CM No.4234 of 2011) for condonation of 79 days of delay in filing the appeal, however, without taking the said delay into consideration, we have heard the learned counsel for the parties on merits and gone through the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge.
In the impugned order, the appellant is questioning the allotment of 10 marks to respondents No.3 and 4 on account of the site of showroom. According to the appellant, those marks were given to these two respondents in violation of the terms of advertisement issued for allotment of LPG Distributorship at Piyala. It is the submission of the appellant that the showroom sites offered by respondents no.3 and 4 are not located at the advertised location, i.e. Piyala, District Faridabad. Therefore, both the respondents should not have been given 10 marks for the site of showroom. If those 10 marks allotted to these respondents are excluded, then the appellant is to be placed at Sr.No.1 and is entitled for allotment of the said LPG Distributorship. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the appellant relied upon Clause 13B of the Application Form which provides that `showroom should be located in the location advertised and should have suitable approach road'. Learned counsel has also referred to the information supplied to him by the respondent-Department to the effect that if the candidate offers showroom outside the advertised location then the candidate is not entitled for marks for showroom under the parameter "Capability to provide Infrastructure".
After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the impugned order, we do not find any force in the contention of L.P.A. No.1552 of 2011 (O&M) -3- the learned counsel for the appellant. Clause 13.2 of the advertisement reads as under:-
"13.2 SHOWROOM Showroom as per the standard layout can be constructed in a shop/land located in the area of operation (trading area) of the advertised location for LPG distributorship and should be easily accessible to general public through a suitable approach road."
According to the aforesaid Clause, the showroom, which is required for the grant of LPG Distributorship as per the standard layout can be constructed in a shop/land located in the area of operation (trading area) of the advertised location. The area of operation within the trading area admittedly means any location situated within 15 kms of the advertised location. It has not been disputed by the learned counsel for the appellant that the sites offered by both the respondents are located in the area of operation (trading area) of the advertised location. However, learned counsel argued that true interpretation of this clause is that the site should be located in the area of advertised location i.e. only at Piyala. Learned counsel argued that only the said interpretation can be adopted which is nearer to the intention of the advertisement.
We do not find any force in the aforesaid contention of the learned counsel. The learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition while coming to the conclusion that respondents No.3 and 4 whose sites are located in the area of operation of the advertised location, are to be given 10 marks for the showroom in accordance with the guidelines issued for selection. Clause 13.2 is clear and unambiguous as it clearly conveys the L.P.A. No.1552 of 2011 (O&M) -4- meaning that the site, where the showroom can be constructed, which is required for the grant of LPG Distributorship, as per the standard layout should be located in the area of operation (trading area) of the advertised location. Hence, it was not necessary to have showroom at advertised location of Piyala village only. The LPG Distributorship was for urban-rural location which was to serve several villages within a radius of 15 kms. from the advertised location. The sites for showroom could be in any place within the said area of operation (trading area). In our opinion, respondents No.1 and 2 have rightly awarded 10 marks to respondents No.3 and 4 for the site of showroom. It has not been disputed that the showroom sites provided by both the respondents are located in the area of operation (trading area) of the advertised location and both the sites are also easily accessible by road.
In view of the aforesaid, we do not find any illegality in the impugned order.
Dismissed.
(SATISH KUMAR MITTAL)
JUDGE
February 10, 2012 ( T. P. S. MANN )
vkg JUDGE