Gujarat High Court
Dhruvinkumar Ashwinbhai Kotwal vs Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd on 3 October, 2017
Author: Mohinder Pal
Bench: Mohinder Pal
C/SCA/476/2017 ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 476 of 2017
==========================================================
DHRUVINKUMAR ASHWINBHAI KOTWAL....Petitioner(s)
Versus
BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD....Respondent(s)
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR AJ YAGNIK, ADVOCATE for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR AJAY R MEHTA, ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOHINDER PAL
Date : 03/10/2017
ORAL ORDER
1. Petitioner, in this case, has challenged the action of the respondent-Corporation dated 28.11.2016 whereby, petitioner was found to be ineligible for Retail Outlet (R.O.) dealership (petrol pump dealership).
2. By way of an advertisement dated 8.7.2014, respondent-Corporation invited application for Retail Outlet dealership within 1 k.m. from Kehbhramha District:
Sabarkantha, State of Gujarat. The applicant applied for this dealership. The dealership was to be provided as per guidelines of the Corporation. However, on 1.4.2015, respondent-Corporation addressed a communication to the petitioner calling for certain documents to be provided on or before 22.4.2015, which were duly supplied by the petitioner. It is case of the petitioner that the respondent-Corporation without informing the petitioner Page 1 of 5 HC-NIC Page 1 of 5 Created On Sat Oct 07 09:39:54 IST 2017 C/SCA/476/2017 ORDER rejected his candidature on the ground that he was not having sufficient balance in his bank account. As per Bank balance maintained by the petitioner, he was having more than Rs.25 Lacs at the time of applying for the said dealership. According to him, as the petitioner was having sufficient balance in his account, at the relevant time, action of the respondent by rejecting the candidature vide communication dated 28.11.2016 was liable to be quashed and set aside.
3. Respondent has contested this petition by filing reply wherein, it is contended that respondent-Corporation is governed by the guidelines issued on selection of dealers for regular and rural retail outlets. Said guidelines are mandatory and have to be adhered to by the respondent and other OMC's. There is absolutely no discretion available with the respondent to either ignore or relax the same. If the petitioner was not fulfilling the requirement prescribed in the said guidelines, he was not entitled to get the retail outlet dealership applied by him. It is further the case of the respondent- Corporation that as per paragraph No.4.3, it was specifically provided in the list of non-rectifiable deficiencies in the application. Petitioner did not meet the criteria of minimum fund of Rs.25 Lacs as stipulated therein. Since this deficiency was one of the non- rectifiable one, the application of the petitioner for R.O. dealership at the mentioned location was rightly rejected. Since the same was not in line with the guidelines, finally, it has been prayed for dismissal of this petition.
Page 2 of 5HC-NIC Page 2 of 5 Created On Sat Oct 07 09:39:54 IST 2017 C/SCA/476/2017 ORDER
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to various documents according to which, he has applied for the R.O. dealership. Further it was argued that the application was processed by respondents, and if there was any deficiency on part of the petitioner, the same could have been pointed out to the petitioner at the relevant time. Since the application of the petitioner was processed and it has passed through many channels including supply of certain information, the candidature of the petitioner could not have been rejected on the ground of financial insufficiency. Learned counsel has produced details of bank account according to which, on 8.8.2014, he was having more than Rs.25 Lacs in his account and hence, fulfilled the financial criteria laid by the respondent.
5. On the other hand, respondent has referred to the provision of the Corporation vide which it was mandatory to have sufficient balance of Rs.25 Lacs on the date of submission of application form. Since petitioner was not having sufficient funds in his account on the last date of submission of application form, the candidature of the petitioner has been rightly rejected by the respondent- authority.
6. This Court has considered the submissions made by both the sides. From the perusal of the documents, it appears that candidature of the petitioner has been rejected on the ground of financial insufficiency.
Page 3 of 5HC-NIC Page 3 of 5 Created On Sat Oct 07 09:39:54 IST 2017 C/SCA/476/2017 ORDER
7. Respondents vide its advertisement available at page No.111 invited applications for allotment of dealership. For being eligible for allotment of dealership, it was one of the conditions that candidate was required to have Rs.25 Lacs in his bank account on the date of submission of application form. Relevant portion of the advertisement is re-produced as under:
APPLICANTS IN THEIR OWN INTEREST SHOULD CAREFULLY GO THROUGH THE "BROCHURE" AND UNDERSTAND CONDITIONS OF SELECTION BEFORE SUBMITTING THEIR APPLICATION.
Application for RO dealership along with enclosures complete in all respect with Non- refundable application fee (Rs.100/- in respect of Rural ROs (Rs.50 for SC/ST category locations) and Rs.1000/- in respect of Regular Ros (Rs.500/- for SC/ST category locations) and Initial Down Payment (IDP) towards bidding amount (Rs.50,000 for Rural ROs and Rs.1,50,000/- for Regular Ros), if applicable by separate Demand Drafts / Pay Orders drawn on any Scheduled Bank must be submitted so as to reach the office address mentioned below by 1700 Hrs. on 07/06/2014.
8. Admittedly, learned counsel for the petitioner has produced copy of the statement of accounts possessed by the petitioner. Perusal of this document shows that on 7.6.2014, he was having Rs.393.64 in his credit. Another sum of Rs.10,000/- has been deposited on 8.8.2014 i.e. the day after the last date and his balance came to Rs.10,394.67. Thereafter, on the same day, the petitioner has deposited another sum of Rs.25 Lacs and his credit has gone to Rs.25,10,394.60. It will be surprising to note Page 4 of 5 HC-NIC Page 4 of 5 Created On Sat Oct 07 09:39:54 IST 2017 C/SCA/476/2017 ORDER that the petitioner has withdrawn the amount of Rs.25 Lacs on the same day i.e. 8.8.2014. It could be seen that the petitioner has not fulfilled the criteria of respondent- Corporation. Depositing Rs.25 Lacs after submission of application form i.e. 7.8.2014 is a futile effort to come within criteria and to show sound financial position. Since on the relevant date, i.e. 7.8.2014, the petitioner was not having Rs.25 Lacs in his account, the candidature of the petitioner seems to have rightly rejected by the respondent-Corporation by passing impugned order dated 28.11.2016.
9. Learned counsel for the petitioner has pointed out that after the petitioner's application has been processed, his candidature cannot be rejected on the ground of financial instability. No doubt, the respondent might have processed the application but defect of financial insufficiency cannot be rectified later on. When the application has been processed finally, respondent- Corporation has found that the petitioner was not fulfilling the financial criteria of maintaining the balance of Rs.25 Lacs as laid down in the policy and accordingly, rejected his candidature.
10. In view of the afore-going discussion, this petition being devoid of any merit, is dismissed. Notice is discharged.
(MOHINDER PAL, J.) ashish Page 5 of 5 HC-NIC Page 5 of 5 Created On Sat Oct 07 09:39:54 IST 2017