IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.10957 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 27.09.2011 Jagdish Prasad son of Shri Kharkiya, resident of Village Pelak, Post office Sihaul, Tehsil Palwal, District Palwal. ...Petitioner versus Indian Oil Corporation Limited, through Chief Divisional Retail Sales Manager, (MD), Gurgaon Divisional Office, Delhi Terminal, Bijwasan, New Delhi-61, and another. ....Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN ---- Present: Mr. Raj Mohan Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Ashish Kapoor, Advocate, for respondent No.1. Mr. D.D. Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No.2. ---- 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? No. 2. To be referred to the reporters or not ? No. 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest ? No. ---- K.Kannan, J. (Oral) 1. The petitioner challenges the allotment of retail outlet in open category for Kisan Sewa Kendra (KSK) dealership. The contest stood tied between the petitioner and the 2nd respondent, where at the first round, the petitioner had been found as having secured the highest award of marks, while the 2nd respondent had been awarded lower marks. On the basis of certain allegations levelled against the petitioner at the instance of the 2nd respondent, Civil Writ Petition No.10957 of 2009 (O&M) - 2 - an enquiry had been undertaken and a fresh interview call was made after two years. When the final reckoning was made, the 2nd respondent had been found as securing higher marks to the petitioner. While rejecting the petitioner's entitlement and his grading as No.1 candidate, the petroleum Corporation found two reasons to reject the petitioner's claim and justifying reappraisal of marks awarded for property qualification. One, that he had been lessee from his father, who held only a fractional share of 8/100 sharers and No Objection Certificate (NOC) from other co-owners had not been obtained. The property that had been offered was not specifically demarcated and, therefore, the previous award of marks had to be withdrawn. The learned counsel for the petitioner states that it is not as if the petitioner did not have a right in the property at all but he had a fractional share and if full marks had not been awarded, appropriate weightage for the title which father could transfer to him must have been made. In other words, according to him, the Corporation could not have merely awarded zero marks for his property qualification. 2. I find the argument to be fallacious for the award of marks is not at the percentage of title that the petitioner has. The issue is not whether the petitioner is a co-owner and the transferee of a co-owner could claim a fractional share for the property or not. On the other hand, the issue is whether the property offered by a prospective dealer was to be considered as fully unattached from Civil Writ Petition No.10957 of 2009 (O&M) - 3 - any other claim to make possible a location of a petrol pump. In cases of ownership, the best method of securing such unfettered claim would be to secure no objection from other co-owners. The learned counsel states that the NOC from other co-owners had been obtained and produced before the Corporation subsequently. This fact is denied by the respondent but even if it were to be true, if the petitioner had not submitted the necessary documents in the manner required under the guidelines and in the application then there could be no scope for the allotting any marks for the property qualification. The manner of appraisal undertaken by the Corporation fully accords with the evidence brought before it along with the application and what was elicited at the interview for the personal details of the petitioner and I find no error in the contract awarded to the 2nd respondent. 3. The writ petition ought to fail and is, accordingly, dismissed. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE 27.09.2011 sanjeev