Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Kailash Chand Saini vs The Chairman And Managi Dir Ors on 7 February, 2017
Author: M.N. Bhandari
Bench: M.N. Bhandari
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT
JAIPUR
S.B.Civil Writ Petition No. 291 / 2011
Kailash Chand Saini S/o Late Shri Ram Sahai Saini, Aged about 41
years, Resident of Village & Post Pichupada Khurd, Gular Choraha,
Tehsil - Baswa, District : Dausa (Rajasthan)
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The Chairman & Managing Director, Hindustan Petroleum
Corporation Ltd., 17, Jamshedji Tata Road, Mumbai.
2. The Director (Marketing), Hindustan Petroleum Corporation
Ltd., 17, Jamshedji Tata Road, Mumbai.
3. The Senior Regional Manager, Tel Bhawan, Sahkar Marg, Jyoti
Nagar, Jaipur
----Respondents
_____________________________________________________ For Petitioner(s) : Mr.MS Raghav For Respondent(s) : Mr.K.Verma with Mr.Pratyush Raj _____________________________________________________ HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.N. BHANDARI Judgment 07/02/2017 By this writ petition, a challenge is made to action of the respondents denying allotment of retail outlet dealership at the location between Gular Choraha and Abhaneri, District Dausa.
It is a case where in pursuance of the advertisement for allotment of retail outlet at various locations, petitioner made an application. A corrigendum was issued by the respondents for (2 of 3) [CW-291/2011] the location in question apart from other locations. In the initial advertisement, location was required to be between Gular Choraha and Abhaneri and same was the position in the subsequent advertisement. The only change in the two advertisements in question was replacement of word "vksj" by "vkSj". In the corrigendum, the word "vkSj" has been used, which means that location should be in between Gular Choraha and Abhaneri. The petitioner referred the site closed to Gular Choraha but was not in between Gular Choraha and Abhaneri. The total marks received by the petitioner were 50.8 on other heads thus he could not secured minimum 60 per cent qualifying marks hence allotment of retail outlet has not been made.
The case of the petitioner is that once the location was at Abhaneri or Gular Choraha then petitioner being located closed to Gular Choraha should have been awarded marks towards the land, offered by him. If the marks towards land would have been given, the petitioner could have secured minimum required marks.
I find that in both the advertisements i.e. advertisement and corrigendum,even if the word "vksj" has been replaced by "vkSj", it remains the same because location of land was required between Gular Choraha and Abhaneri as in both the advertisements the words "chp esa" has been referred i.e. "in between". The location offered by the petitioner was not in between Gular Choraha and Abhaneri but between Gular Choraha and Bandikui and it was in fact on Bandikui road thus I do not find any illegality in denial of marks towards the land. The petitioner (3 of 3) [CW-291/2011] could not secure required qualifying marks thus not entitled for allotment of retail outlet dealership.
In the light of the aforesaid, the writ petition is dismissed.
(M.N. BHANDARI)J. Preeti, PA/44