IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.11955 of 2008 Smt. Vandana Singh, W/o- Sri Sanjeev Kumar Singh, Resident of Village +P.O.- Jamuhar, P.S.- Dehri, District- Rohtas. ……………… Petitioner. Versus 1. The Indian Oil Corporation Limited through its Chairman, Ali Janam, Bandra (East), Mumbai. 2. The General Manager, Bihar State Office, Indian Oil Corporation Limited, Lok Nayak Jai Prakash Bhawan, 5th Floor, Dak Bunglow, Patna. 3. The Sr. Divisional Retail Sales Manager, Indian Oil Corporation Limited, Block-A, Mauryalok Complex, Dak Bunglow, Patna. 4. Smt. Rinki Singh, D/o- not known, At + P.O.- Bheriya, District- Rohtas. ……………….. Respondents. ------------- Advocate for Petitioner : Mr. Sunil Kumar Singh Advocate for Indian Oil Corporation : Mr. Anil Kumar Jha ---------------------- 03 07.11.2008 Pursuant to advertisement of the Indian Oil Corporation Limited (IOC) for setting up of a retail petroleum outlet at Sasaram Bye Pass adjacent to National Highway the petitioner and Respondent No. 4 applied apart from others. After the Committee evaluated the respective bids Respondent No. 4 was empanelled as the first candidate and the petitioner as the second. Petitioner complained to IOC that Respondent No. 4, who was first empanelled candidate, had suppressed material particulars in regard to the land in question. It is stated that the land in question belonged to third parties and had been mortgaged to Punjab National Bank. Those persons then in 2004 leased the land to Respondent No. 4. Respondent No. 4 did not disclose this fact in any affidavit or paper filed with IOC that the leased land was mortgaged by the landlord to Bank and as such was not free from encumbrance. In the counter affidavit IOC has annexed the inspection - 2 - report, as Annexure-A dated 19-12-2007 of the Committee and the inspection report clearly shows that when it came to make recommendation, the Committee did not make a positive recommendation as that part of the report is left as it is. The Committee then could not go through the legal formalities of having assessed the actual ownership/title of land documents over the plot of land being shown by the applicant, who was Respondent No. 4. These clearly indicate that the Committee was aware of the encumbrance and as such did not choose to examine the ownership aspect of the matter. It is curious that notwithstanding these notings in the report the Committee awarded marks to Respondent No. 4 in respect of the land. It is this action that is protested by the petitioner. In the counter affidavit it is stated that pursuant to petitioner’s protest the matter is under investigation. No letter of intent has been issued to Respondent No. 4. This Court had directed to IOC to inform the Respondent No. 4 about pendency of the writ petition. Sri Anil Kumar Jha on instructions from IOC states that due intimation was given to Respondent No. 4. This Court by order dated 10.09.2008 restrained IOC from creating third party interest, notwithstanding aforesaid Respondent No. 4 has chosen not to appear before this Court. In such view of the matter, I direct that IOC would now enquire into the encumbrance and ownership of the land and then reallocate the marks to Respondent No. 4. IOC would also be obliged to finally dispose of petitioner’s representation within one month from - 3 - today. In view of the observations as made above once a final decision is taken it must be communicated to the petitioner and the petitioner would then have his remedy against them as may be advised to him. This disposes of the writ petition. Let a copy of this order be given to learned counsel for the Indian Oil Corporation. Trivedi/ (Navaniti Prasad Singh,J.)