IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 1656 of 2011 (M/S) Smt. Sharda Raturi and another … Petitioners Versus Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. and others ..… Respondents Mr. Sharad Sharma, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Gajendra Tripathi, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Dinesh Gahatori, Advocate for respondent No.1 Mr. Siddhartha Singh, Advocate for respondent No. 3. Hon’ble Tarun Agarwala, J. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited issued an advertisement dated 6th June, 2010 inviting application from the public for grant of a retail petroleum outlet at various places. Serial No. 38 of the advertisement provided that a petrol pump would be located at Uttarkashi-Gangotri road between 30 to 34 milestone on NH-108 in the district of Uttarkashi. Applications for this retail outlet was invited from the open category. The advertisement indicated that the minimum area of the land offered by the applicant would be 400 metres, the frontage would be 20 metres and the depth would be 20 metres. Pursuant to the said advertisement, the petitioner as well as the respondent No. 3 and others applied. Their applications were scrutinized and the land was inspected by an Officer of the Petroleum Company and, thereafter, the marks as per the parameters laid down by the Company were allotted. The tabulation of the marks has been annexed as annexure 6 to the writ petition which indicates that the petitioner received a total of 52.8 marks and the respondent No. 3 received 81.3 marks. Under the category of land, the petitioner was awarded zero marks against 96 marks awarded to respondent No.3. In the parameter of experience, the petitioner was awarded zero marks whereas respondent No.3 was awarded 4 marks. The petitioner objected to the awarding of such marks and filed a complaint which was duly dealt with and decided by a competent 2 officer of the Petroleum Company on 22nd June, 2011. The complaint of the petitioner was rejected and, thereafter, the respondent No.3 was selected for grant of a retail outlet at serial No. 38 of the advertisement. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the selection of the candidature of respondent No. 3 by the selection board, has filed the present writ petition. Heard Shri Sharad Shrama, the learned senior counsel assisted by Shri Gajendra Tripathi, the learned counsel for the petitioners, Shri Dinesh Gahatori, the learned counsel for the Petroleum Company and Shri Siddhartha Singh, the learned counsel for the respondent No. 3, the private respondent who has been selected for the retail outlet. The learned senior counsel for the petitioners submitted that the advertisement clearly indicated that the area of the land offered should be 400 sq. mtrs., the frontage of which was required to be 30 meters and the depth was required to be be 20 meters which the petitioner had offered and which the Patwari while submitting the map had certified. The learned senior counsel further submitted that awarding zero marks to the petitioner on the land offered was patently arbitrary and against the condition stipulated in the advertisement. Upon a perusal of the map which the Patwari has given, the Court finds that the land offered by the petitioner, even though, it measures more than 400 sq.mtrs. is not rectangular in shape. The frontage is 26.90 metres and the width at the back is 9.40 metres. On one side, the dept of the land measures 20.60 metres and, on the other side, it measures at 25.10 sq.mtr. Consequently, the land offered was not a square and, on this basis, the competent authority gave zero marks. The contention of the learned counsel that the advertisement nowhere provided that the area should be a square shaped size and the only requirement was that the area should be a minimum of 3 400 sq.mtrs. and that the frontage and the depth were only specified to be 20 metres each which the petitioner possessed and, consequently, the allocation of zero marks in favour of the petitioner was wholly arbitrary and illegal. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, the Court finds that the measurement given in the advertisement indicating that the frontage and the depth should be 20 metres each gives a clear indication that the land should be rectangular in shape having a minimum area of 400 sq. mtrs. Once the length and breadth is indicated, it is clear that the area which has been asked should be a square shaped size. The contention that the respondents nowhere indicated that the width at the back of the land should also be 20 metres is patently erroneous. The competent authority was consequently justified in granting zero marks to the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that the experience certificate submitted by respondent No.3 was not a valid experience document and that as per Clause 3 of the advertisement, if a wrong information was submitted, the application was liable to be rejected. The learned senior counsel pointed out that in the complaint made by the petitioner, the officer concerned in its order dated 22/06/2011 has found that the experience certificate submitted by respondent No.3 was not a valid experience certificate inspite of which the respondent No.3 has been selected whereas the application of the respondent No.3 ought to have been rejected. The contention of the learned counsel is again misconceived and cannot be accepted. The court finds that the certificate submitted by the respondent No.3 was not a forged document but was given by a person authorised to give such a certificate. The competent authority while dealing with the complaint, however, found that the respondent No.3 was not entitled for the marks under the parameter experience and that 4 four marks should not have been allotted to her and that zero marks should have been allotted. The Court finds that Clause 3 of the advertisement cannot be invoked since the respondent No.3 had neither submitted a forged document nor had submitted a wrong information. Consequently, the application of the respondent No.3 could not be rejected under Clause 3 of the advertisement. In the light of the aforesaid, the Court finds that the writ petition is devoid of merit and is dismissed. (Tarun Agarwala, J.) Dated 21st September, 2011 Shiv