Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: bpcl in Smt. Samya Chaudhary vs The Union Of India Thru Secy. And 2 Others on 5 August, 2013Matching Fragments
Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Gupta,J.
(Delivered by Manoj Kumar Gupta, J)
1. Aggrieved by order dated 30.5.2013, whereby the petitioner was informed by the Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited (for short "BPCL") that upon field verification, the information furnished by her in the application for LPG distributorship was found to be at variance and, therefore, her candidature is being rejected, has filed the instant writ petition for quashing the aforesaid order and for commanding BPCL to offer the LPG distributorship in question to the petitioner.
3.The facts in brief giving rise to the instant petition are that the petitioner had applied for LPG distributorship at Naubasta, Kanpur under SC Category pursuant to the advertisement dated 22.10.2011. The Territory Manager, LPG, BPCL, Lucknow informed the petitioner that there are certain shortcomings in the affidavits submitted by her and she was required to remove the defects by 8.2.2013. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner claims to have submitted a fresh affidavit, and thereafter by letter dated 28.2.2013 sent by Territory Manager, LPG, Lucknow she was informed that she has qualified for the draw of selection of LPG distributorship to be held on 21.3.2013 and she may remain personally present on that date. According to the petitioner, she was successful in the draw of lots and thereafter field verification was carried out to ascertain her credentials and to verify the information submitted by her in the application. At the time of field verification, it was noticed that in the registered lease-deed of the land, which was offered by her for construction of godown, by inadvertence, in place of Plot No. 1040, Plot No. 1050 has been mentioned. On coming to know of the said typographical error, she immediately got the registered lease rectified by getting a registered titimma executed on 8.5.2013 in which it was mentioned that in the original lease deed, in place of plot no. 1050, the correct plot no. 1040 be read. The further case of the petitioner is that she immediately intimated the BPCL vide her letter dated 9.5.2013 that the mistake in the registered lease deed has been corrected by substituting plot No. 1040 in place of plot no. 1050. According to the petitioner, no further discrepancy was found in the field verification. However, she was taken aback on receipt of the impugned order dated 30.5.2013 whereby her candidature has been rejected. The relevant portion of the aforesaid letter containing two grounds is reproduced below:
5. On the other hand, Sri Vikas Budhwar, learned counsel for BPCL submitted that there is no infirmity in the decision of the BPCL rejecting the candidature of the petitioner. According to him, the petitioner has clearly mentioned in her application that the plot of land being offered for construction of godown bears khasra plot no. 1050 and in such circumstances the field verification of khasra plot no. 1050 was rightly carried out. He submits that subsequent rectification of lease deed cannot have the effect of removing the defects which was in existence at the time of submission of the application. He placed reliance on Clause 7.1 of the brochure in emphasizing that the ownership of the land offered for construction of godown has to be seen as on the date of application and any subsequent exercise to remove the defects or to change the location of the site cannot be taken into consideration. He thus, stoutly protected the action of the BPCL.
The same principle will apply in case of misdescription of plot number in a document. It is the boundaries which will ordinarily prevail. In the instant case, the correct intent of the parties to the lease-deed became manifest on execution of registered rectification deed dated 8.5.2013 whereby it was clarified that the land which is subject of conveyance is in fact plot no. 1040 and not 1050. Such extrinsic evidence was required to be considered to gather the real intention of the parties to the document in question. Admittedly, a copy of the rectification-deed was duly forwarded to the BPCL on 9.5.2013 much before the impugned order dated 30.5.2013 was passed. In such circumstances, it was incumbent upon the BPCL to have considered the rectification deed submitted by the petitioner and to get a re-inspection done of plot no. 1040. However, BPCL acted in a mechanical manner and without paying any heed to the stand of the petitioner, it illegally rejected her candidature on the basis of their report based on plot no. 1050. In such circumstances, ground no.1 on which the candidature of the petitioner has been rejected cannot be sustained in law.