Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Smt.Anita Jain vs Indian Oil Corporation Limited ... on 8 December, 2015

                                     1

Smt. Anita Jain Vs. Indian Oil Corporation & Ors.
                                                         W.P. No. 668/2014

08.12.2015
     Mr. K.N. Gupta, learned senior counsel with Shri
Sanjay Bahirani, learned counsel for the petitioner.
     Mr. A.K. Jain, learned counsel for the respondents
No. 1 to 3.
     Mr. C.R. Roman, learned counsel for respondent
No. 4.
        With the consent of learned counsel for the
parties, this matter is heard finally.
        In   this    petition      under         Article    226/227     of
Constitution of India, the petitioner inter alia seeks
quashment           of    order          dated      17/01/2014        and
consequential declaration of merit panel contained in
Annexure P-2.
        Facts giving rise to filing of the present petition,

briefly stated, are that an advertisement was issued for opening of retail outlet at Kajari, District Ashoknagar. The petitioner as well as respondent No. 4 submitted their applications in pursuance to the aforesaid advertisement. The petitioner as well as respondent No. 4 were interviewed on 17/01/2013 and on the very same day merit panel was prepared and the petitioner was placed in merit list at serial No. 1. After declaration of the result on 28/01/2013, the respondent No. 4 2 Smt. Anita Jain Vs. Indian Oil Corporation & Ors.

submitted a complaint Annexure P-5 by which review of the result was sought. The petitioner after acquiring knowledge of the aforesaid complaint has submitted objection on 20/05/2013. However, by impugned order dated 10/01/2014, the competent authority held that the complaint submitted by the respondent No. 4 has substance and accordingly merit panel prepared on 17/01/2013 in which petitioner's name placed at serial No. 1 was cancelled. During pendency of the writ petition before this Court, the complaint of the petitioner was investigated on 06/05/2014 and subsequently the same was rejected. Thereafter the petitioner amended the writ petition and challenged the order rejecting his representation.

When the matter was taken up today, learned senior counsel for the petitioner raises singular contention that before cancellation of merit panel prepared on 17/01/2013 in which petitioner was placed at serial No. 1 neither any notice nor opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner which amounts to violation of clause 18(b) of brochure which prescribed terms and conditions pursuant to selection 3 Smt. Anita Jain Vs. Indian Oil Corporation & Ors.

offer of retail outlet dealership.

Learned counsels for the respondents were unable to point out from the record that either any notice or opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner before passing the order dated 10/01/2014.

In view of the fact that merit panel dated 17/01/2013 in which the petitioner was placed at serial No. 1 was cancelled without affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, the action of respondents No. 2 & 3 for cancellation of merit panel unilaterally without affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner is in flagrant violation of principle of natural justice and, therefore, the same cannot be sustained in the eyes of law.

Accordingly, the impugned order dated 10/01/2014 and all the consequential orders are hereby quashed.

The respondents No. 2 & 3 are directed to afford opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as well as respondent No. 4 and after adjudicating the rival submissions made by petitioner as well as respondent No. 4 shall prepare a merit panel. The aforesaid 4 Smt. Anita Jain Vs. Indian Oil Corporation & Ors.

exercise shall be completed by respondents No. 2 & 3 within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order passed today.

With the aforesaid directions, this writ petition stands disposed of.

Certified copy as per rules.

(Alok Aradhe) Judge Durgekar*