Patna High Court - Orders
Mukesh Pandey vs Hindutan Petroleum Corporation on 18 July, 2012
Author: Shiva Kirti Singh
Bench: Shiva Kirti Singh, Vikash Jain
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Letters Patent Appeal No.925 of 2012
======================================================
MUKESH PANDEY S/O SRI JAGDEEP PANDEY R/O VILLAGE-
BARAHI, P.O. AND P.S.- AKORHI GOLA, DISTRICT- ROHTAS -
821301
.... .... APPELLANT/S
VERSUS
1. THE HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LIMITED,
THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN 17, JAMSHEDJI TATA ROAD, MUMBAI-
400020
2. THE SENIOR REGIONAL MANAGER, HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM
CORPORATION LIMITED, LOK NAYAK JAI PRAKASH BHAWAN,
6TH FLOOR, POST BOX NO. 40, DAK BUNGLOW CHOWK, PATNA-
800001
3. THE SCRUTINY OFFICER, HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM
CORPORATION LIMITED, LOK NAYAK JAI PRAKASH BHAWAN,
6TH FLOOR, POST BOX NO. 40, DAK BUNGLOW CHOWK, PATNA-
800001
.... .... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. K.D.Chatterjee, Sr.Adv.
Mr.V.K.Tripathy,Adv
Mr.Amlesh Kumar Verma,Adv.
For the HPCL : Mr. Rajeev Prakash, Adv.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVA KIRTI SINGH
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIKASH JAIN
ORAL ORDER
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVA KIRTI SINGH)
3 18-07-2012Heard the parties.
2. By the order under appeal dated 16.4.2012 the learned Writ Court has dismissed the writ petition preferred by the appellant bearing CWJC No. 2933 of 2012 mainly on account of strict requirement of Clause 12 and Clause 16 (b) of the guidelines for selection of Retail Outlet Dealers. The view taken by the Writ Court is that the appellant/writ petitioner cannot be permitted to supplement or support his claim by submitting further documents after the time for submitting application along with relevant Patna High Court LPA No.925 of 2012 (3) dt.18-07-2012 2 documents has expired.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that no doubt the two judgments considered by the learned Single Judge rendered by this Court in the case of Niraj Kumar vs. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., 2009 (3) PLJR 591 and the other rendered by the Supreme Court in the case of Monika Gupta vs. Union of India and others ,(2010) 6 SCC 574 laid down the law that the applicants cannot be permitted to improve their cases for claiming higher marks by submitting further documents at a later stage. But according to him in this case no further document was required to be filed by the appellant because he had already filed lease deed for 15 years executed by his father in respect of the concerned land together with the certified copy of the khatian to support that the owner of the land, i.e., father of the appellant was in fact the owner. But it is admitted on behalf of the appellant that the proof of ownership over the land submitted by the appellant showed joint ownership of his father and his uncle and no consent letter of his uncle was submitted along with the application form as was required under the guidelines. However, the simple submission on behalf of the appellant is that the certified copy of khatian filed by the appellant suffered from factual error and that in fact father of the appellant was the sole owner of the land offered by the appellant and only to support this factually correct position the appellant at a later stage, on receiving a letter seeking explanation, sought to explain by furnishing further documents.
4. According to learned counsel for the appellant it is not a case where claim based upon lease deed is being improved upon by taking a different stand, but in this case further clarification became necessary because initially the appellant filed an incorrect Patna High Court LPA No.925 of 2012 (3) dt.18-07-2012 3 khatian which had to be subsequently replaced by other documents showing correct position regarding ownership of the land in favour of father of the appellant.
5. Faced with the law laid down in the judgments noticed above that no further documents could be filed to support the plea already taken in the application form, learned counsel for the appellant sought a way out by taking the stand that this Court should direct the Oil Company to itself hold an enquiry as to whether father of the appellant was alone the owner of the land as per khatian and revenue records or he was joint owner with the uncle of the appellant.
6. We are not persuaded to accept the aforesaid submission for the simple reason that it will give scope for various kinds of enquiries by the Oil Company or the authorities making selection and for improving the nature of documents or claims. The procedure must remain time bound, transparent and the selection board of the Oil Company cannot be given adjudicatory role to go beyond the required papers for deciding whether documents submitted earlier with regard to ownership were incorrect, false or genuine, on the basis of documents of same party submitted later. We may indicate herein that the advertisement which is available on record prescribes the format of application and Clause 12 (b) of the application requires the applicant to disclose the name of the owner of the land and in support of the same proof is also required to be attached. At the end of Clause 12 in the application form a further requirement has been indicated that in case the applicant is not the land owner, consent letter/legal document from the land owner is required to be enclosed. Hence filing of the lease deed alone was not Patna High Court LPA No.925 of 2012 (3) dt.18-07-2012 4 sufficient to meet the requirement of the application form. The appellant was required to disclose the name of the owner of the land as he was himself was not the owner, but only a lessee. Once he disclosed the name of his father as the owner of the land, he was also required to attach proof thereof and that proof in the form of certified copy of khatian disclosed that the land was owned not only by his father but also by his uncle. The selection and award of suitable marks under the head "land and infrastructure "had to be awarded only on the basis of documents submitted with the application form. Initially the concerned authority failed to notice the entry in the khatian showing joint ownership and granted higher marks on the basis of lease deed, but on subsequent scrutiny the defect was detected and after giving opportunity of explanation to the appellant, the authorities have decided to hold a fresh interview as per policy guidelines.
7. In our considered view, considering the materials discussed by the Writ Court and contents of the application form as noticed above, the judgment and order under appeal needs no interference. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed.
(Shiva Kirti Singh, J)
Chandran (Vikash Jain, J)