Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Rajendra Prasad Yadav S/O Sohanlal ... vs The Indian Oil Corporation Limited on 12 April, 2022
Author: Mahendar Kumar Goyal
Bench: Mahendar Kumar Goyal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4117/2022
Rajendra Prasad Yadav S/o Sohanlal Yadav, Aged About 28
Years, R/o Ward No. 5, Dhani Bhairshli Wali, Jharli, Tehsil
Srimadhopur, District Sikar (Raj.).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The Indian Oil Corporation Limited, Indian Oil Bhawan, G-
9, All Yavar Jung Marg, Bandra (East), Mumbai Through
Its Managing Director.
2. The Regional Manager, Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.
Rajasthan State Office, Ashok Chowk, Adarsh Nagar,
Jaipur.
3. The Deputy Managing Director/head Of Divisional Office,
Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. Jaipur Divisional Office, 1 st
Floor, LIC Investment Building, Phase-II, Near Ambedkar
Circle, Bhawani Singh Road, Jaipur-302005.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sultan Singh Kuri
For Respondent(s) :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL
Order
12/04/2022
By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has assailed the order dated 28.02.2022 whereby the subject location for allotment of retail outlet, has been cancelled.
The facts in brief are that in pursuance of an advertisement dated 14.12.2018 issued by the respondents, the petitioner applied for allotment of retail outlet dealership under OBC category for location between Jharli Village and Bamarda Joda Village on Bamrda to Jharli Road, Tehsil Srimadhopur, District (Downloaded on 13/04/2022 at 09:26:07 PM) (2 of 4) [CW-4117/2022] Sikar. Vide letter dated 15.12.2021, the petitioner was informed that he has been declared as successful candidate in the draw of of lots conducted on 13.12.2021 for selection of RO dealership and he was required to complete some formalities. It is stated in the writ petition that despite completion of formalities by the petitioner, instead of allotting him dealership, vide order impugned dated 28.02.2022, the subject location has been cancelled without assigning any reason.
Learned counsel for the petitioner contented that despite remaining successful in draw of lottery for allotment of RO dealership, without assigning any reason, the subject location has been cancelled by the respondents. He, therefore, prays that the order impugned may be set aside and the respondents may be directed to award him RO dealership for the subject location. He, in support of his submission, relies upon a Supreme Court judgment in Civil Appeal No.4681/2014: Sunita Gupta vs. Union of India & Ors., decided on 22.04.2014.
Heard. Considered.
The material on record reveals that though the petitioner was declared as successful candidate in draw of lottery conducted on 13.12.2021; however, no letter of intent was ever issued in his favour. Vide order dated 28.02.2022, the petitioner has been informed that subject location stands cancelled. The gravamen of petitioner's contention is that the order has been passed without assigning any reason. However, a perusal of the advertisement issued by the respondents reveals that it was specifically stipulated therein that corporation could cancel/withdraw/modify the advertisement in its discretion without assigning any reason. (Downloaded on 13/04/2022 at 09:26:07 PM)
(3 of 4) [CW-4117/2022] It is trite law that mere declaration of a candidate as successful in the draw of lots or for that matter, even issuance of Letter of Intent in his favour, does not create any indefeasible right in him for allotment. The Hon'ble Kerala High Court has, in case of Haroon A.K. and Ors. vs. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. and Ors.: MANU/KE/1161/2021, held as under:
"18. Furthermore, the General Conditions of the 1st respondent pertaining to advertisement, reserves the right of the Company to cancel/withdraw/amend the advertisement. In such circumstances, setting aside the cancellation of selection process for violation of principles of natural justice, will not serve any useful purpose. As long as final allotment of dealership is not made by the Company, the petitioners do not have any vested right to start Retail Outlets."
In these circumstances, the validity of the order impugned dated 28.02.2022 cannot be permitted to be assailed on the ground that it was passed without assigning any reason. Further, it has not been case of the petitioner that he required the respondents to supply him reasons for cancellation of the subject location but, the same was denied to him. He is always at liberty to do so.
The judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner is of no help to him having been rendered in altogether different facts and circumstances. In that case, after declaring the appellant as selected candidate subjecting her to interview by the Selection Committee wherein she was awarded 35 marks under particular head, her selection was set aside altering 35 marks to zero mark with a call for fresh interview. In those circumstances, (Downloaded on 13/04/2022 at 09:26:07 PM) (4 of 4) [CW-4117/2022] it was held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that the respondent- corporation has acted unfairly in cancelling appellant's selection. However, as already observed, in the present case, subject location has been cancelled in terms of the advertisement itself which warrants no interference of this Court under its writ jurisdiction.
Resultantly, this writ petition is dismissed being devoid of merit.
(MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL),J MADAN/69 (Downloaded on 13/04/2022 at 09:26:07 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)