IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.19184 of 2010 DEVA NAND SINGH, son of late Kalpu Singh, resident of village & Post- Gara via Barauni, P.S. Bhagwanpur, District- Begusarai, at present residing at village Suryapura,P.S. Bhagwanpur, District- Begusarai….. … Petitioner Versus 1.THE UNION OF INDIA through the Secretary, Oil and Petroleum Department, Government of India, New Delhi. 2.The Chairman Bharat petroleum Corporation Ltd., Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd., Bharat Bhawan, 4 and 6 Currimbhy Road, Ballard Estate Mumbai-400001. 3.The Chief Marketing Officer, Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd., maker Tower E and F, 12 Floor, Cuffe parade, Mumbai-400005. 4. The Chief Vigilance officer, Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. Bharat Bhawan 1,4 and 6 Currimbhoy Road, Ballard Estate Mumbai-400074. 5.The Area Marketing Manager, Area Marketing Manager office, Bharat petroleum Patna, 3rd Floor Ashiana Chamber, Exhibition Road, Patna. 6.The Co-ordinator Bharat petroleum Corporation Ltd. 3rd Floor, Ashiana Chamber, Exhibition Road, Patna. 7.Sri Krishna Rai, son of Jagdish Rai, resident of village and Post-Suryapura, P.S. Bhagwanpur, District- Begusarai…. ….. Respondents ----------- For the petitioner: Mr. Ranjeet Kumar, Advocate Mr.Dilip Kumar, Advocate For BPCL: Mr. Sanjay Singh,Advocate ------ 2. 26.11.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent Oil Company. The petitioner seeks a direction to the respondents to produce a copy of the complete file, including the application form of respondent No.7 and the order of allotment of the dealership of retail outlet at Suryapura, District- Begusarai and after production thereof to set aside the order of allotment of dealership and a further direction that the same be allotted to him. This is the second round of litigation by - 2 - the petitioner. Earlier, against the selection of respondent No.7 as the first candidate in the merit list prepared for the allotment of retail outlet dealership, the petitioner had filed C.W.J.C.No.2695/2010, which was disposed of by order dated 16.2.2010 in which this Court after noting that there is an in- house mechanism for grievance redressal, gave liberty to the petitioner to file his objection with specific reasons on which he challenged the selection of respondent No.7 and the concerned authority would be obliged to respond to the petitioner’s allegations within the timeframe fixed therein. Admittedly, the petitioner filed his complaint by letter dated 8.3.2010. In the said complaint he did not give any specific reasons for challenging the selection of respondent No.7 but made the following statements in paragraph Nos.IX and X of the said letter: “IX.Sir, the Hon’ble Court has directed to this applicant to give specific reason of challenge but unfortunately the applicant do not have all the relevant documents to - 3 - show specific reason as observed by the Hon’ble Court. In such circumstances, it is humbly requested to provide me all the documents related to selection process, including the application form and documents of Mr. Krishna Rai, marks granted by the Selection Committee to Mr. Krishna and to this applicant etc. so that specific reason may be brought on the record, by filing a supplementary petition.” Pursuant to the above, the petitioner was requested to meet the Area Marketing Manager and various documents were also supplied to him. The petitioner again filed another letter making various complaints regarding non-supply of documents and thereafter filed a supplementary petition dated 3.9.2010. The main objection of the petitioner is that the allottee, respondent No.7, has not submitted details of land which belongs to him, rather there were lands belonging to the joint - 4 - family comprising his father himself and his brother and his claim was only supported by affidavits of his father and brother that in case the licence was granted to him, they were willing to part with their share in the concerned land in lieu of a share in another part of the property. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on the basis of the said affidavits it could not be said that the respondent No.7 was having his own land and thus his case fell under the category of confirmation of 3rd person, as the respondent No.7 being a married person, his father and brother will not come within the definition of “family unit” and they would have to be treated just like a third party. Learned counsel for the respondent oil Company, on the other hand, submits that the petitioner has been raking up the entire issue with only general submissions, which has been noted in the earlier order dated 16.2.2010 of this Court in the earlier writ petition also and for the said reason, this Court had directed that he would file his objection with specific reasons on which he challenges the selection of respondent No.7 but instead of doing so within the timeframe - 5 - provided by the guidelines, he has been insisting upon a fishing enquiry and for supplying documents so that somehow or the other, he can make out some case against respondent No.7. It is urged by learned counsel that the same is not permissible. According to learned counsel for the respondent the authorities of the Petroleum Corporation prepared the merit list on the basis of documents submitted by the parties and the matter does not come to an end at that stage. Even after the selection, a field investigation is made and all the documents submitted are duly verified and thus if any wrong statement is made regarding the ownership of the land in question the letter of intent is not issued in favour of the candidate at serial No.1 of the merit panel. It is further submitted by learned counsel that the land possession certificate has also been submitted by respondent No.7. The same is also supported by affidavits of his father and his brother from which it is evident that the land of respondent no.7, his father and brother are joint family property and his father and brother clearly stated in their respective affidavits that they - 6 - will not insist upon their share in the said land and in lieu of the same they will take another plot as their share. Thus, according to learned counsel, the petitioner is definitely to be considered owner of the land and not merely a person who has made an offer of the land. It is also submitted by learned counsel for the Oil Company that while making the selection the Oil Company is only concerned with the undisputed possession over the land and in view of the affidavits of the father and brother, there is no dispute regarding the possession over the land in question of respondent No.7. On a consideration of the rival submissions of learned counsels for the petitioner and the respondent Oil Company, I find sufficient force in the submissions of learned counsel for the respondent Oil Company. This Court while disposing of the earlier writ petition by order dated 16.2.2010 made it clear that the petitioner has to file his objection with specific reasons and the concerned authorities would be obliged to respond to the petitioner’s allegations within a timeframe fixed therein, which had to be followed both by the petitioner as also the respondent Oil - 7 - Company but instead of doing so, it is evident that the petitioner has admitted in his complaint letter dated 8.3.2010 that he did not have any specific reason to challenge the selection of respondent No.7 and he wanted the supply of all the documents so that he may make out a case. Such course of action is not permissible under the guidelines as put in place by the Oil Company. For the said reason alone, in view of the fact that the petitioner was bound by the order of this Court in the earlier writ petition, the present writ petition ought to be dismissed. However, with respect to the objection of the petitioner regarding the title over the land in question, this Court is of the view that broadly the respondent No.7 appears to have satisfied the authorities that the land which he has given for the purpose of the retail outlet dealership will be without any dispute regarding title and possession in view of the affidavits filed by the father and brother of respondent No.7. It must be remembered that with respect to a joint family property, there is no specific ownership of any member of the joint family over any part of the land that belongs to the joint - 8 - family and each of the coparcener only has a specific share in the overall properties and his right and possession over the entire property remains until partition is made by metes and bounds. In any view of the matter, it is for the authorities of the respondent Oil Company to satisfy themselves in this regard. So far as this Court is concerned, it does not find that the guidelines laid down in this regard have been violated by the respondent Oil Company. For the aforesaid reasons, the writ application is dismissed. VPS ( Ramesh Kumar Datta, J. )