IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.6478 of 2010 Binod Kumar Prasad, S/o Late Ganga Dayal Prasad, resident of Village- Ekdegwa, P.S. Manjhi, District-Saran Versus 1. M/s. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd., through its Chairman and Managing Director, having its registered office at 17, Jamshedji Tata Road, Mumbai-400020 2. The Dy. General Manager (North Central Zone), Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd., Plot No.1, Nehru Enclave, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow 3. The Senior Regional Manager (Retail), Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd., 6th Floor, Lok Nayak Jai Prakash Bhawan, Dak Bunglow Road, Patna ----------- For the petitioner: M/s. Anil Kumar Sinha & Mritunjay Kumar, Advocates For the H.P.C.L.:- Mr. Rabindra Nath Kanth, Advocate. ------------ 5. 12.7.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent- Hindustan Petroleum Corporation. The petitioner seeks setting aside of the Performance (Result) dated 11.1.2010 notified in connection with the interview held on 11.1.2010 for the selection of dealer of a retail outlet situated at N.H.-19, Rivilganj, right hand side in between mile stone KM 132 to 135, in the District of Saran under the open category and further for quashing the order dated 18.3.2010 passed by the Dy. General Manager (North Central Zone), Lucknow and communicated by respondent no. 3 by letter dated 2 24.3.2010 by which the complaint dated 14.1.2010 filed by the petitioner was disposed of as rejected. An advertisement was taken out on 20.6.2009 by the respondent- Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited for appointment of retail outlet dealership at different places in the State of Bihar and Sl. No. 29 of the said advertisement described the place for location of the retail outlet on NH 19 at Rivilganj on the right hand side between 132 KM and 135 KM mile stones in the district of Saran under the open category. It appears that the petitioner was the only candidate who had applied for the said dealership in the name of Madhuri Devi and Binod Kumar Prasad (partnership). The Inspection Committee awarded 94.5 marks for capacity to provide infrastructure and facility but the Interview Committee awarded “0” marks as a result of which no marks were obtained by the petitioner’s firm and it was ultimately declared unsuitable. The petitioner filed a complaint on 14.1.2010 stating that he fulfills the necessary criteria as per the advertisement yet his case has been rejected on account of zero marks awarded in respect of the land. By another letter the petitioner submitted the relevant 3 documents showing that the land was situated within the mile stones 132 KM to 135 KM on N.H.-19 on the right hand side and as per the documents of the land it was evident that it was located in village (Mauza) Bhadpa, P.P. Manjhi, Thana No. 210 Rivilganj, Tauzi No. 3558, Sub- Registry office Chapra, Circle Office, Rivilganj and thus fulfills the necessary criteria. On the complaint of the petitioner, the matter was got investigated and ultimately by the impugned order dated 18.3.2010 it was held that the meaning of the advertisement was that the outlet was proposed to be set up at Rivilganj at specified mile stones but the land offered by the petitioner is at Bhadpa and accordingly the decision of the Evaluation Committee was as per the guidelines and thus the complaint was disposed of as rejected. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that once the authorities of the respondent-Corporation had specified the location of the land as between two mile stones 132 KM to 135 KM on the right hand side of NH-19, then the same could not have been rejected merely because the land documents mention the location in village (Mauza) Bhadpa which falls within Thana, Circle Office as also 4 Block, Rivilganj. It is urged that the place Rivilganj cannot be interpreted in the manner as has been done by the authorities as the entire stretch between the mile stones 132 KM and 135 KM would be covered and the same also falls within Rivilganj and the advertisement cannot be understood as anything but the location of the land between the two mile stones. Learned counsel for the respondent-Corporation, on the other hand, supports the stand of the authorities of the respondent-Corporation stating that they have acted in terms of the guidelines and have not deviated from the strict interpretation of the advertisement since the land of the petitioner is located at village Bhadpa and not at village Rivilganj. Learned counsel for the petitioner counters the same by stating that in any case there is no village by the name of Rivilganj and the entire area between mile stones 132 KM and 135 KM falls within the Thana, Circle and Block Rivilganj and thus any land falling within the two mile stones would be automatically covered by the advertisement. Learned counsel for the respondent-Corporation 5 was unable to show that there is a village Rivilganj which covers the entire area between the two mile stones. On a consideration of the facts and circumstances, this Court is of the view that once the advertisement issued by the respondent-Corporation specified the mile stones between which the land was to be located, it was not open to the authorities to have understood that the land must be of village Rivilganj. The heading of the column merely mentions the place (Sthan) on which the land was to be located and it does not state that the same has to be a village. In the said circumstances, the mention of Rivilganj in that column is to be treated as including even the Thana, Circle or Block so long as the land itself is located within the two mile stones 132 KM to 135 KM. It is admitted in the reply on behalf of the respondent-Corporation to the supplementary affidavit filed by the petitioner that the land offered by the petitioner is situated between 132 KM and 135 KM at NH-19 on the right hand side. In the said circumstances, it has to be held that the petitioner qualifies to be considered for selection as a retail outlet dealer in terms of the advertisement as far as location of his land is concerned and the authorities of the 6 respondent-Corporation have wrongly rejected his claim on that ground. The writ application is accordingly allowed. The statement of performance in so far as it relates to the allotment of marks by the Interview Committee to the petitioner based on the ground that the land is not situated at the specified place as per the advertisement, as also the impugned order dated 18.3.2010 passed by the Deputy General Manager, North Central Zone are set aside and the respondent-authorities of the Corporation are directed to reconsider the case of the petitioner treating him as possessing the land within the location advertised and if the petitioner is found otherwise suitable on the basis of other criteria then issue appropriate orders in his favour. Let the same be done within a period of two months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. S. Pandey ( Ramesh Kumar Datta, J.)