IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.20899 of 2011 ====================================================== Alok Ranjan Kumar S/o Sri Hari Madhav Singh R/o Village- Balha, P.O. and P.S.- Amnour, District- Saran at Chapra .... .... Petitioner Versus 1. The Union of India through the Secretary Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gases, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi 2. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited 17, Jamshedji Tata Road, Mumbai through the Chairman 3. The General Manager North Central Range, Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited, 1,Nehru Enclave, Gomati Nagar, Lucknow (U.P.) 4. The Senior Regional Manager Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited, 6th Floor, Lok Nayak Jai Prakash Bhawan, Dak Bungalow Chowk, Patna 5. Smt. Kumari Kavita W/o Sri Sudish Kumar Roy C/o Sri Lakshmi Prasad Yadav, R/o Village- Takina, P.O. and P.S.- Marhaura, District- Saran at Chapra .... .... Respondents ====================================================== with Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.14267 of 2011 ====================================================== Mantu Kumar Ojha S/o Sri Shankar Bhagwan Ojha R/o Vill.- and P.O.- Hawalpur, P.S.- Marhaura, Distt.- Saran at Chapra .... .... Petitioner Versus 1. Union of India through the Secretary Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gases, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi 2. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited, 17, Jamshedji Tata Road, Mumbai through the Chairman 3. The General Manager, North Central Range, Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited, 1 Nehru Nagar Enclave, Gomati Nagar, Lucknow(U.P) 4. The Senior Regional Officer, Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited 6th Floor, Lok Nayak Jai Prakash Bahwan, Dak Bunglow Chowk, Patna 5. Smt. Kumari Kavita W/o Sri Sudish Roy C/o Sri Lakshmi Prasa Yadav R /o Vill.- Takina, P.O.- and P.S.- Marhaura, Distt.- Saran at Chapra .... .... Respondents ====================================================== Appearance : (In both the cases) For the Petitioner/s : Mr. S.B.K.Mangalam, Advocate with Mr.Ravi Ranjan, Advocate For the Respondent No.5: Mr. Basant Kr.Choudhary, Sr.Advocate With Mr.Sanjay Kr.Singh, Advocate For the Respondent HPCL: Mr. Rajeev Prakas, Advocate Patna High Court CWJC No.20899 of 2011 (5) dt.15-05-2013 2 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESH KUMAR DATTA ORAL ORDER 5 15-05-2013 Mr.S.B.K. Mangalam, who is also learned counsel for the petitioner in CWJC No.20899 of 2011, does not press the said writ application. CWJC No. 20899 of 2011 is, accordingly, dismissed as not pressed. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsels for the respondent Hindustan Petroleum Corporation and private respondent No.5 in CWJC No.14267 of 2011. The petitioner seeks a direction for quashing the order dated 18.4.2011 passed by respondent No.3, the General Manager, North Central Range, Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited by which the recommendation against selection of the petitioner has been rejected and further for quashing the selection of respondent No.5 and consequentially to consider the petitioner for grant of dealership. The petitioner as also the respondent No.5 and another candidate applied for selection as a retail outlet dealer for location Marhaura in Saran district under open category at State Highway-73 under Marhaura Mauza pursuant to an advertisement published by the respondent HPCL on 11.6.2010. Patna High Court CWJC No.20899 of 2011 (5) dt.15-05-2013 3 The petitioner had offered two plots of land leased out to him in the year 2010 under two lease deeds. The respondent No.5 had also relied upon similarly upon two lease deeds of other plots of land. Physical verification of the land was made by a Committee of the respondent Corporation on 28.11.2010. The said Committee rejected the land offered by the third candidate as not falling in Nagar Panchayat, Marhaura area. With respect to the petitioner it was found that the petitioner had only 32 meters frontage of land in two plots against the required 35 meters, whereas the requirement was of having dimension 35 x 35 meters as frontage and depth under the advertised location. Admittedly the petitioner had signed on the said report although the allegation is made that the petitioner was made to sign on a plain paper. Thereafter the petitioner and others were called for interview. After the interview the respondent No.5 was placed at Serial No.1 of the merit panel that was prepared having obtained 90.35 marks out of 100 and the cases of the petitioner and the third candidate were rejected. The petitioner having obtained only 44.33 marks has been awarded ‘0’ marks for the land for which the maximum marks was 35. The petitioner filed a complaint which has been rejected by the impugned order dated 18.4.2011. Aggrieved by the same the petitioner has come to this Patna High Court CWJC No.20899 of 2011 (5) dt.15-05-2013 4 Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondents have acted in the matter so as to favour the respondent No.5 as it is evident from the revenue map of the land in question that each of the plots had frontage of 18.5 meters and the total frontage was 37 meters which is more than the requirement of 35 meters. Thus the report of the Committee was illegal and ought not to have been relied upon. It is also submitted that the land scrutiny report was not made available to the petitioner at the time of interview which is the requirement of the Brochure laying down the Guidelines for Selection of Retail Outlet Dealer. It is further submitted by learned counsel that a Title Suit No.694 of 2010 had been filed against the lessor of the land of respondent No.5 and such disputed land ought not to have been considered by the respondents. In support of the stand learned counsel for the petitioner has sought to rely upon the map produced in that regard. Learned counsel for the HPCL, whose submission has been adopted by learned counsel for respondent No.5, on the other hand, submits that so far as the frontage of the land of the petitioner is concerned, the same was based upon actual Patna High Court CWJC No.20899 of 2011 (5) dt.15-05-2013 5 measurement made by the Committee sent for inspection of the land which was done in the presence of the petitioner and the report has also been signed by the petitioner and thus it is not open to the petitioner to turn back and challenge the said report which has gone against him. It is the further contention of learned counsel that all the procedures that are required have been followed at the time of interview and any allegation made is without any basis. Learned counsel also submits that the impugned order clearly mentions the fact that a mere dispute over the land does not disqualify a person for selection as a dealer and further it was found that the Title Suit in question was filed against the lessor of respondent No.5 after the application had been filed; moreover the said suit had been dismissed on 5.2.2011 as the plaintiff had withdrawn the case and thus no such dispute was pending at the time when the final order was passed. It is also submitted by learned counsel that the lease deed of the petitioner itself does not mention the area/dimension under lease and thus the same has to be considered only on the basis of the actual measurement made in the presence of the petitioner and it is not open to the petitioner to challenge the same. Patna High Court CWJC No.20899 of 2011 (5) dt.15-05-2013 6 I have considered the submissions of learned counsels for the parties. It is evident from the impugned order dated 18.4.2011 that it has considered all the four grounds raised in the complaint of the petitioner and has assigned reasons for rejecting the same. So far as the frontage of the land of the petitioner is concerned, in writ jurisdiction this Court is of the view that the report presented by the Investigation Committee which has verified the land has to be normally accepted, unless there are good reasons to show that they have acted in a mala fide manner. In the present case the report has been signed by the petitioner and it is not open to the petitioner now to say that the petitioner had signed on a blank sheet of paper. If that has been done then the petitioner has to thank himself for having defeated his rights by his own action. I further find that the maximum marks allowed for land overall cannot exceed 35 and the petitioner has been allotted ‘0’ marks for Infrastructure and Facility, whereas the total marks of the petitioner was only 44.33 as compared to 90.35 of the respondent No.5. The difference between their marks is thus 46.02. In the aforesaid circumstance even if the petitioner had been given full marks for the land under the Patna High Court CWJC No.20899 of 2011 (5) dt.15-05-2013 7 heading ‘Capacity to provide Infrastructure and Facility’ the petitioner would still be at Serial No.2 on the merit panel and would not succeed. In the aforesaid view of the matter, the writ application is devoid of merit. It is, accordingly, dismissed. spal/- (Ramesh Kumar Datta, J)