-1- CWP 4453/2001 & CWP 4457/2001 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR O R D E R (1) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4453 of 2001. Dharmendra Gupta son of Shri Prakash Chandra Gupta VERSUS State of Rajasthan and Others (2) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4457 of 2001. Saraogi Transporters VERSUS State of Rajasthan and Others Date of Order :::: 10.12.2010. Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dalip Singh Mr. Mahesh Sharma, Counsel for the Petitioner Mr. Arvind Bhardwaj } Mr. S.N.Kumawat } Mr. Alok Sharma, with } Counsel for the Respondents Mr. Rishabh Khandelwal } **** S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4453 of 2001:- This petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the act of omission on the part of the respondent No.2-U.I.T., which has failed to consider the candidature of the petitioner for allotment of a plot under the allotment Scheme Transport Nagar/Transport Nagar Vistar Scheme of the U.I.T. Kota of the year 2000. Facts, in short, relevant for consideration are that the petitioner claims to be running the business of transportation of oil through Tankers under the contract with the Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited, a -2- CWP 4453/2001 & CWP 4457/2001 company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, 1956, a Government of India undertaking. Petitioner applied for a plot measuring 40x90ft., under the said Scheme of 2000. The petitioner received a communication Annexure-3 dated 19.02.2001 from the respondent U.I.T. pointing out certain short comings in his application and was required to remove the same on or before 28.02.2001. Petitioner sent his reply on 25.02.2001, which was received by the respondents in which the petitioner interalia submitted that in place of bilties, which are normally submitted by the Goods Transport Companies the petitioner is submitting the invoices for the year 1996 to 2000 to show that the petitioner has been doing the business of transportation with the Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited. Petitioner also submitted, along with Annexure-4 the reply, an affidavit as well as certificate issued by the Depot In-charge of the Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited at Kota certifying that the petitioner-M/s. Dharmendra Gupta is a Contractor and is their authorized petroleum products supplying transporter since November, 1996 and that he is -3- CWP 4453/2001 & CWP 4457/2001 supplying the Petroleum Products on behalf of company. The aforesaid certificate is dated 22.08.2000. Petitioner alleged that despite the aforesaid short comings having been rectified and the necessary documents in support of the application having been submitted the petitioners' candidature was not considered and rejected arbitrarily. Petitioner has further stated that he was informed orally that his case has not been found eligible, as he was engaged in the business of Oil Transport through Tankers and as such he is not eligible. Petitioner in the reply in Para 19 has given instances of 12 transporters engaged in the business of transportation of oil/petroleum products through Tankers, who have been given the plots by the U.I.T. He, therefore, submits that it is a case of hostile discrimination qua the petitioner by holding that the petitioner is ineligible. In the reply submitted by the respondents, as there was no order of rejection of the application submitted by the petitioner issued by the respondent U.I.T. Kota, the case of the petitioner has to be evaluated and decided on the basis of the pleadings in the writ and -4- CWP 4453/2001 & CWP 4457/2001 the reply submitted before this Court by the respondents. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents that all applications were screened and physical verification was carried out and the allotment has been made only after scrutiny of the documents and the report received on the same. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the resopndents that the petitioner failed to submit proper documents, as per the letter dated 19.02.2001. The case of the respondent in Para 13 of the reply is that the petitioner was required to submit the certified copies of the bilties and challan, but the petitioner submitted the copies of cash-memos/invoices issued by the Hindustan Petroleum Corporation instead of bilties and challan. It has also been stated that the invoice/cash-memo were not in favour of M/s.Medatwal Motors. It was also stated in Para 14 of the reply that the certificate issued by Shri D.N. Meena, Depot In- charge, Hindustan Petroleum is not acceptable, as it does not bear the dispatch number and also that the same is incomplete inasmuch as it does not show the route of transportation and the registration number of the vehicle -5- CWP 4453/2001 & CWP 4457/2001 used for transportation. So far as the above submissions of the respondents are concerned, as stated in the reply it seems that the respondents have lost site of the fact that the petitioners claims that he is a transporter of a petroleum products on behalf of Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited, a Government of India undertaking whatsoever petroleum products are transported to and from the Depot or to the retail outlets are under the invoices issued by Depot and there can possibly no bilty for the same. The invoices issued by the Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited with regard to the transportation of the petroleum products from the Depot to the retail outlets or from the filling point to the Depot would be more genuine than any bilty submitted by a transporter. The authenticity of bilties and cash memos cannot stand on a better footing than the invoices issued by the Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited in favour of the petitioner. In that view of the matter, I do not find that the respondents were justified in ignoring the claim and the petitioner for being considered for the allotment of the plot in the Transport Nagar Scheme as a transporter. -6- CWP 4453/2001 & CWP 4457/2001 As regards the certificates issued by the Depot Incharge it cannot be said, in the absence of any cogent reason, that the same does not support the petitioner. The reasons that the same not bears the despatch number can hardly be accepted, more particularly in view of the fact that the respondents have taken upon themselves the task of physical verification and actual verification regarding the nature of the business, place of business of the applicants, including the volume of business, of the applicants. If at all, there was any doubt, it was open for the respondents to have made the verification in this regard from the Depot In charge, who issued the certificates. Moreover, the genuineness of the invoices issued for transportation of Petroleum Products is not doubted and the certificate is only corroborative of the same. The other submission of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent U.I.T. was that the scheme was for rehabilitation and shifting of the existing persons indulging in transport business in various part of the Kota City to one localized area so that the traffic in the City is not obstructed. It was submitted by the learned counsel that -7- CWP 4453/2001 & CWP 4457/2001 the address given by the petitioner was that of “care of” Medatwal Motors, Jhalawar Road, Kota and on visiting the place of address it was found that there was no such business carried out from the aforesaid premises as neither were there any goods or consignments found in the premises to show that any transportation business was being carried out and on the contrary it was only an automobiles part shop. Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner had only given the aforesaid address as care of Medatwal Motors and so far as running of the business is concerned i.e. limited to the transportation of the petroleum products to and from to the Oil Depot of the Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited. Since the goods being transported are petroleum products nothing could have been in the premises to show that the premises was being used as for carrying on the business. Unlike the case of other transport companies where consignments which are received or are liable to be discharged would normally to be found in the premises. I find considerable force in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner and accordingly, I -8- CWP 4453/2001 & CWP 4457/2001 would hold that the rejection of the application of the petitioner considering the petitioner to be ineligible deserves to be quashed with the direction to the respondent U.I.T. to consider the case of the petitioner for allotment as the grounds on which the application was rejected do not hold good and it is also a case of hostile discrimination as other tanker operators doing the same business have been considered eligible and alloted the plots. Having said so, it is made clear that it would be open for the respondent U.I.T. , Kota to consider the case of the petitioner in accordance with the conditions of the Scheme including condition No.19 for the allotment of the plot depending upon the nature/volume of the work etc., so as to determine what plot the petitioner should be held eligible for allotment. It may also be made clear that in case the respondents want to verify as to whether or not the petitioner is still in business of transportation it would be open for the respondents to seek any clarification or proof from the petitioner. The respondents would complete the aforesaid process on or before 15th March, 2011 and in case the -9- CWP 4453/2001 & CWP 4457/2001 petitioner is held eligible he would be entitled to allotment on or before 1st April, 2011. This petition stands allowed as aforesaid. The stay application also stands disposed of. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4457 of 2001:- This petition has been preferred by the petitioner - Saraogi Transporters, whose case is also identical with that of petition of Dharmendra Gupta [S.B.C.W.P. No.4453/2001} decided today i.e. on 10.12.2010. Petitioner - Saraogi Transporters is the transporter under contract with the Indian Oil Corporation. He received the letter Annexure-4 dated 17.01.2001 pointing out certain defects and even this petitioner sent a reply, which is similar in terms to the reply sent by Dharmendra Gupta showing the invoices and challans for the goods being transported as Petroleum Products to and fro from the Indian Oil Corporation Depot at Kota. In the light of what has been submitted hereinabove and as the questions being identical with the case of Dharmendra Gupta, this petition also on the -10- CWP 4453/2001 & CWP 4457/2001 reasonings of the aforesaid petition deserves to be allowed. The respondents are directed to consider the case on the basis of the same directions, as contained in Dharmendra Gupta's case. This petition stands allowed in terms of directions given in Dharmendra Gupta's case. The stay application also stands allowed. (Dalip Singh) J. ashok/