IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CWP No.348 of 2006 Date of decision: 25.7.2008 Bhavesh Kumar …Petitioner Vs. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. …Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr.Justice R. B. Misra, Judge. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Ajay Vaidya, Advocate For Respondent No. 2: Mr.Rahul Mahajan, Advocate Per R.B.Misra, J.(Oral) Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Prayer has been made in the writ petition seeking direction to the respondent to award marks to the petitioner in respect of the land and infrastructure as stipulated in the advertisement, dated 14th November, 2005 (Annexure P-1) in respect of allotment of retail outlet of petrol pump under Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. at Sanarli/Karsog. 3. It appears, the petitioner, alongwith other applicants, submitted applications in reference to the advertisement dated 14th November, 2005, published by Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. for the allotment of petrol pump at Sanarli/Karsog. It was specifically indicated that the land measuring at least 20 x 20 meters has to be made available for such purpose. It appears that for allocation of retail outlet to the dealers, guidelines for selection 1 Whether reporter of local papers are allowed to see the judgment ? 2 are provided by the Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. whereby inter alia many of the items provided for the main item is availability of site or land for which 35 marks (maximum) are allocated. Clause 14.1 of the said guidelines, enclosed as Annexure R-1 to the writ petition, indicates the suitability of site offered by the applicants and clause 16.1 for norms for evaluating candidates for retail outlet dealerships and the clause 16.1.1 provides that each candidate (individuals and partners of a partnership firm) during the interview will be assessed by the Selection Committee broadly under the following parameters:- “a. Capability to provide land and infrastructure/facilities marks 35 b. Capability to provide finance 25 marks c. Educational qualifications 15 marks d. Capability to generate business 10 marks” 4. The Clause 18 deals with Grievance/Complaint Redressal System, which reads as below: “An aggrieved person may send his/her complaint to the oil company at the address of the customer service cell displayed at the nearest retail outlet of the concerned oil company. Complaints can also be lodged on the website of the oil company. (i) Anonymous/pseudonymous complaints will not be investigated. (ii) On receipt of a complaint a letter will be sent by the oil company to the complainant through Registered Post, asking him to submit details of allegation with a view to prima facie substantiate the allegations along with supporting documents, if any, within 30 days. Response of the complainant will be examined by the designated officer of HPCL and if it is found that the complaint does not have specific and verifiable allegations, the same will be closed/filed.” 5. It appears that the petitioner submitted his application accompanying the certificate of revenue authority indicating that the land available in his possession is ½ of 492 Sq. meters in the joint 3 name of Bhavesh Kumar as well as his brother Harish Kumar accordingly, ½ of 492 Sq. meter i.e. 246 Sq. meters is supposed to be in the joint ownership and possession. On the basis of the submission of documents accompanying with the applications, the authorities and the Committee of Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. had awarded 44.62 marks for retail outlet to the petitioner, whereas 60% marks is the minimum qualifying marks required for general candidate, whereas out of such marks awarded to the petitioner, no marking, however, was made in respect of the category of availability of site and land. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted before us that he could have purchased additional land from his brother and could have arranged more land for the purpose if at present the land is not sufficient to meet the requirement of allotment of retail outlet dealership by the Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that the petition is not maintainable for redressal of grievances of the petitioner and the petitioner could have approached for redressal of his grievances under Clause 18 of the guidelines provided by the Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. According to the learned counsel for the respondent, the required land of 20 x 20 Sq. meter was not available with the petitioner and as such the committee has arrived rightly at the conclusion not to allocate the retail outlet of petrol pump to the petitioner. 8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. We are of the view that the requirement for allotment was of 20 x 20 Sq. meter of land whereas the land indicated by the petitioner 4 falling in his share as indicated is only 240 Sq. meter because he is owner to the extent of ½ share of the total land measuring 492 Sq. meter, as aforesaid. According to the committee appointed by the respondent frontage of the site of land of petitioner is 90 feet, which is equivalent to 27.69 meters and, therefore, 20 feet depth cannot be possible taking the total land of area of 492 Sq. meters because for achieving 20 meters depth area with 27.69 meter frontage, the total land should be 553.8 meters. Keeping in view the frontage of land of petitioner which has already been noticed as 27.69 meters (90 feet), the depth of 20 feet cannot be possible in the land having total area of 492 Sq. meter, including ½ share of the brother of the petitioner. 7. In view of the foregoing analysis and keeping in view that the petitioner does not meet the requirement of specifications provided by the Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd., non awarding of any marks towards the availability of site/land cannot be said to be unreasonable. We do not find any scope of giving any indulgence in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, we find no merit in this writ petition which is accordingly dismissed. ( R. B. Misra ), J. July 25, 2008(K) ( Surjit Singh ), J.