In Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited vs. Kumari Nikita Singh (2025), Patna High Court's Division Bench Justice Vipul M. Pancholi led bench passed a 24-page long judgement date July 29, 2025. It reads: "we are of the view that, in view of Clause 15(m) as well as declaration, the BPCL was justified in passing the impugned order dated December 3. 2019 cancelling the candidature of the petitioner. Hence, the learned Single Judge has committed an error by allowing the writ petition filed by the petitioner. Accordingly, the impugned judgment dated July 29., 2024, passed in CWJC No.1241 of 2021 is set aside." Justice Pancholi's 9th judgement reads:"For the reasons and grounds mentioned above and the impugned order is set aside, the authorities are directed to process the application of the petitioner and grant him the letter of intent, if he is otherwise eligible. The present writ petition is allowed accordingly. It is also made clear that in case the Respondent No. 6, if so advised, can file a civil suit for compensation or for recovery of the amounts spent by him." The case was heard along with Deepak Kumar Singh vs. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited, Mumbai & Ors. (2025).
Justice Pancholi recollected the decision in wherein, the Court observed:"17. In matters of contract, the Writ Court may leave it open to the contracting parties to act in the manner they may deem fit. Insofar as
the action of the IOCL is not seen to be plainly arbitrary and/or unreasoned, we are not inclined to offer any interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to reverse the commercial decision of the IOCL – to not enter into the contract with the petitioner."
Justice Pancholi observed:"We are of the view that when the petitioner as well as another candidate, namely, Manisha Kumari, sister-in-law of the petitioner, both have offered same plots of land bearing Khesra No.1982 and 1984, BPCL was justified in cancelling the candidature of the petitioner." The Court inferred that the petitioner as well as Manisha Kumari were aware about the aspect of offering same plots of land for RO dealership, otherwise, there was no reason for Manisha Kumari to withdraw her candidature.
In his judgement, Justice Pancholi recorded that Manisha Kumari had withdrawn her candidature on September 26, 2019 itself, due to the reason that her sister-in-law has been selected in draw of lots.
Justice Abhishek Reddy's 11-page long judgement dated July 29, 2024 had set aside the impugned order and directed "the authorities to process the application of the petitioner and grant him the letter of intent, if he is otherwise eligible. The present writ petition is allowed accordingly. It is also made clear that in case the Respondent No. 6, if so advised, can file a civil suit for compensation or for recovery of the amounts spent by him." The petitioner had filed for the following reliefs:-
(i) To issue an appropriate writ order direction in the nature of certiorari for quashing the letter bearing reference no. 15455627859308 dated 03.12.2019 whereby the territorial manager retail, Muzaffarpur has cancelled the candidature of the petitioner on the basis of the information furnished during field verification of credentials without giving reasonable opportunity to the petitioner.
(ii) To declare and hold that the land/plot offered by the petitioner for award of RO dealership within 2 km. from Barail chowk towards Donwari Hatt on Madhubani Babubarhi Khutona Path, District Madhubani under open category through application form no. 15455627859308 is not offered by another applicant for the same location and the said land exclusively has been offered by the petitioner for the location.
Pursuant to the advertisement issued by the Respondent-Corporation seeking applications for award of the
Retail Outlet Dealership at within 2 Km. from Barai Chok towards Donwari Haat on Madhubani-Babubarhi-Khutona Path District- Madhubani, the petitioner had applied for allotment of the Retail Outlet Dealership of petrol pump on December 23, 2018. Thereafter, in the draw of lots/bidding process for the above location under open category was conducted on July 26, 2019. The petitioner was declared as a selected candidate and the same was communicated to the petitioner on July 29, 2019. The petitioner had deposited an amount of Rs. 40,000/- towards initial official security deposit along with requisite documents for processing his application further. Though the field verification of the site was fixed on September 26, 2019, the same was not conducted and thereafter vide letter dated December 3, 2019 the candidature of the petitioner was cancelled. The cancellation was on the ground that the plot offered by the petitioner was also offered by another applicant, namely Manisha Kumari for the very same location. The petitioner's counsel had stated that the rejection of the candidature of the petitioner on the ground that the land offered by the petitioner and one Manisha Kumari who had admittedly withdrawn her application was one and the same, was totally erroneous, contrary to the facts of the case, done without verification of the record, illegal, arbitrary and the same was liable to be set aside on the ground of non-application of mind.
The petitioners counsel stated that the requirement for the award of dealership is 35 mt. (frontage) x 35 mt. (Depth) i.e. total 1225 sq. mts. and the petitioner had offered the land in Plot No. 1982,1982 bearing Khata No. 201, 158, 221 and 159 at village Teghara Taluka/Tahsil Babubarhi, District-Madhubani. The counsel also submitted that the total area of the land in the above khata numbers is more than 2500 sq. mtr. and the petitioner had offered only 1225 sq mtr. out of the total area of more than 2500 sq. mtr. as per the advertised area. That the other area of 1225 sq. meter. was offered by the said Manisha Kumari who had admittedly withdrawn her application after the draw of lots. Therefore, as on the date of rejecting the application of the petitioner, the total land of 2,500 sq. mtr. was available and there was no other application pending before the authority. Even for the sake of argument if any application was pending, the same pertains to another area, not the area offered by the petitioner. The petitioner's counsel had submitted that the impugned order passed by the authorities rejecting the candidature of the petitioner is liable to be set aside on the ground that no show cause notice was issued to the petitioner prior to the cancellation nor the petitioner was given an opportunity of filing his explanation. In case the same was done, the petitioner could had proved that the land offered by the petitioner is distinct and different from the one offered by the Manisha Kumari. Even otherwise, the petitioner could had the opportunity of offering some other alternate land if the land offered was not found suitable. That the authority concerned without physically inspecting the subject land as fixed on 26.09.2019 has simply rejected the candidature of the petitioner in a mechanical manner. The counsel had prayed the High Court to set aside the impugned order and pass necessary orders directing the Respondent-Corporation to process the application of the petitioner further and grant him the Retail Outlet Dealership.
No comments:
Post a Comment