Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Bhagyashree Joshi vs M D B P C And Anr on 22 August, 2016
Author: Alok Sharma
Bench: Alok Sharma
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
AT JAIPUR BENCH
ORDER
Bhagyashree Joshi Vs. Managing Director BPCL & Another
(S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.10041/2016)
Date of Order: August 22, 2016.
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SHARMA
Mr. U.P. Gaur, for the petitioner.
Mr. J.P. Gupta, for respondents.
BY THE COURT:
Under challenge is the order dated 30-6-2016 issued by the Territory Manager (LPG) Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited (BPCL) whereby the petitioner has been informed that her candidature for allotment of LPG Distributorship at Jaipur Hasanpura area as reflected at serial No.31 in the advertisement dated 21-9-2013 was rejected and the amount Rs.50,000/- deposited by the petitioner with the BPCL for the field verification report following her being placed at serial No.1 in the lottery conducted for the selection, forfeited in terms of clause 11(h) and 11
(i) of the advertisement.
2
The facts of the case are that BPCL invited applications for allotment of LPG Distributorship at various locations including one at Jaipur (Hasanpura) under the advertisement dated 21-9-2013 published in Rajasthan Patrika Jaipur Edition. The last date for submitting the application for allotment of LPG Distributorship was 20-10-2013. Eligibility conditions for the allotment and procedure therefor were reflected in the advertisement itself and based on the Brochure on Guidelines for Selection of Regular LPG Distributors (hereinafter `the Brochure') applicable to allotment by various oil companies. Following the application made by the petitioner pursuant to the advertisement dated 21-9-2013 she was allowed to participate in the lottery for allotment of LPG Distributorship at Jaipur (Hasanpura) and was placed at serial No.1. The petitioner thereupon was required to deposit Rs.50,000/- for the field verification of information furnished by her in her application. During the field verification the respondent BPCL required the petitioner to submit documents of her ownership of the land offered by her for setting up the LPG showroom. The petitioner submitted a lease-deed dated 13-1-2014 qua the land offered by her for setting up LPG showroom. In the circumstance the respondent BPCL found that the petitioner on the last date (22-10-2013) for applications for allotment of LPG Distributorship as reflected in the advertisement dated 21-9-2013 did not have the requisite eligibility to be granted 3 allotment of LPG Distributorship for Jaipur (Hasanpura). In this view of the matter the petitioner's candidature and her selection in the lottery for allotment of LPG Distributorship at Jaipur (Hasanpura) was rejected and the amount Rs.50,000/- deposited for the field verification by her was forfeited. Hence this petition.
Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in terms of the Brochure, for upto four months following the field verification the petitioner could have supplied the eligibility of owning land in her name and there was no requirement obtaining for ownership of land offered for the LPG showroom on the date of submitting the application for allotment. It was further submitted that the petitioner was not allowed any opportunity of hearing before the rejection of her application whereupon she could set up her defence. And on this count the action of the respondent BPCL in rejecting the petitioner's cnadidature is vitiated. It was further submitted that the petitioner has since acquired ownership of the land offered for setting up the LPG showroom under the lease deed dated 13-1-2014 and fulfills the eligibility condition for the allotment of LPG Distributorship. She should thus be allotted LPG Distributorship at Jaipur (Hasanpura) as she was at serial No.1 in the panel prepared by the respondent BPCL on the basis of a lottery.
4
Mr. J.P. Gupta, counsel for the respondent has submitted that in the advertisement dated 21-9-2013 itself the terms and conditions were set out in accordance with the Brochure, applicable to all applicants seeking allotment from the various oil companies. In terms of the said terms and conditions it was mandatory for the petitioner to have clear ownership of the land offered by her for setting up the LPG showroom on or before the last date of submitting the application (22-10-2013) for allotment of LPG Distributorship. It was submitted that in terms of the Brochure which is applicable to all oil companies, an applicant is required to own as on the last date as specified for submission of applications the land/ showroom offered. "Own" as defined in the Brochure means having ownership by way of title of the property offered or a registered lease for a minimum 15 years in the name of the applicant. The last date for submitting the application in the instant case was 20-10-2013. It was submitted that the petitioner was included in the lottery and placed at serial No.1 of the panel prepared by the respondent BPCL on the basis of till then unverified information supplied by her in the application form. It however transpired subsequently on field verification that she had wrongly claimed eligibility on the false assertion that she had ownership of the land offered as on 20-10- 2013--prior to 22-10-2013 the last date for the application. But in the course of verification the ownership of the land offered related 5 to the lease deed dated 13-1-2014. Consequently the petitioner's application for allotment of LPG Distributorship was rejected and the amount Rs.50,000/- deposited for the field verification forfeited as per the terms and conditions of the advertisement dated 21-9- 2013.
Mr. J.P. Gupta further submitted that a similar issue arose in the case of Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited and Others Vs. Swapnil Singh, Civil Appeals No.6928-6929 of 2015 decided on 8- 9-2015 by the Apex Court. Therein the Apex Court held that as the applicant on the last date of the application for allotment of LPG Distributorship did not "own" the land offered by her, in view of the terms of the Brochure she was not eligible for allotment and her application was in the circumstances rightly rejected by the oil company. The Apex Court held that the rejection of application was in the circumstance valid as it was incumbent that the applicant must be the title holder of the specified land or must have a registered lease deed in respect thereof on the date of application. Mr. J.P. Gupta submitted that in this view of the matter the issue of the mandatory nature of the last date for submission of the application for ascertaining eligibility of the applicant for allotment of LPG Distributorship is no more res integra. Absent requisite eligibility on the last date of the application, no allotment can be made.
6
Heard. Considered.
Admittedly the last date for submitting the application for allotment of LPG Distributorship for Jaipur (Hasanpura) pursuant to the advertisement dated 21-9-2013 was 22-10-2013. Admittedly in terms of the advertisement and the applicable terms and conditions of the Brochure, the applicant ought to have owned the land offered by her for setting up LPG showroom in her name as on the last date of submitting the application. Such ownership of the land offered by the petitioner ought to have been by way of a clear title or a registered lease for a period of 15 years or more. In the application submitted by the petitioner she had falsely indicated that she was the registered lease holder of the land offered by her before 22-10-2013. On that basis she was included in the lottery and placed at serial No.1 in the panel prepared by the respondent BPCL for LPG distributorship at Jaipur (Hasanpura). Based on her panel position the petitioner was required to deposit Rs.50,000/- for the field verification. The amount was deposited and field verification of information supplied by the petitioner in her application undertaken. The petitioner was required to submit documents with regard to ownership of the land offered by her. The petitioner then submitted lease deed dated 13-1-2014 evidencing her ownership. This fact indicated that the petitioner did not have any "ownership" 7 of the land offered by her on 22-10-2013 i.e. the last date for submission of the application.
In the circumstances the impugned order dated 30-6-2016 was rightly passed by the respondent BPCL rejecting the petitioner's application for allotment of LPG Distributorship and forfeiting the amount Rs.50,000/- deposited by her for the field verification. There is no substance in the arguments of Mr. U.P. Gaur, counsel for the petitioner either on count of the unwarranted construing of the terms and conditions of the advertisement or the brochure as was sought to be done or on basis of alleged violation of the principles of natural justice. In the facts of the case the petitioner had no plausible case at all to defend. In terms and conditions of the advertisement dated 21-9-2013 itself and under the conditions detailed in the Brochure the petitioner was clearly not eligible for allotment of LPG Distributorship for reasons set out hereinabove. This conclusion is further buttressed by the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of BPCL Vs. Swapnil Singh (supra).
There is thus no force in the petition. Dismissed.
(Alok Sharma), J.
arn/ 8 9 All corrections made in the order have been incorporated in the order being emailed.
Arun Kumar Sharma, Private Secretary.