C.W.P. No.8577 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No.8577 of 2010 Date of Decision. 21.10.2011 Lav Kumar Tandon s/o Sh. Sohan Lal Tandon, 47, 2nd Floor, MIG Flats, Near Y-Block, Rishi Nagar, Ludhiana .....Petitioner Versus Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., G-9, Ali Yavar Jang Marg, Bandra (East), Mumbai through its Chairman and others .....Respondents Present: Mr. Raman Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Ashish Kapoor, Advocate for respondent Nos.1 to 3. Mr. Akshay Bhan, Advocate, Mr. Alok Mittal and Mr. Animesh Sharma, Advocate for respondent No.4. Mr. Animesh Sharma, Advocate for respondent No.5. 2. C.W.P. No.14082 of 2010 Ajay Khanna son of Shri Satish Khanna, resident of House No.39, The Mall, Amritsar (Punjab) .....Petitioner Versus Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. through its Chief Area Manager, Indane Area Office, Plot No.3A, Sector 19A, Tel Bhawan, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh and others .....Respondents Present: Mr. Vinod S. Bhardwaj, Advocate for Mr. Naveen Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Ashish Kapoor, Advocate for respondent Nos.1 and 3. Mr. R.K. Sharma, Advocate for respondent No.2. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? No 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? No C.W.P. No.8577 of 2010 -2- 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? No -.- K. KANNAN J. 1. The writ petition in C.W.P. No.8577 of 2010 is at the instance of an applicant for allotment of LPG distributorship of Indian Oil Corporation. On an appraisal of relative merits of various candidates, the petitioner's candidature had been rejected and the petitioner had given a complaint to the Senior Manager, LPG Sales for reappraisal and seeking for award of dealership in his favour. This was rejected principally on the ground that in the manner of assessment by awarding marks under various heads prescribed for the purpose, the oil company had justified their stand as to why they awarded zero marks by pointing out that the petitioner had not supplied the valuation of the property as on date of advertisement namely on 18.09.2006 and that further a No Objection Certificate from the wife as per Annexure 'C' of the application had not been given since the property had been held in joint ownership along with the petitioner with reference to the one item of property namely the property in 412, Medical Enclave, Amritsar. To a further objection by the petitioner that he had not been awarded appropriate marks under the head funds, the Senior Manager had explained that while considering the total liquidated cash that stood in the name of the petitioner and his wife, on the basis of documents submitted, it was found that the petitioner could comment Rs.14.25 lacs as cash available and therefore, 15.1 marks as awarded, conform to the parameters already set down for award of marks. Yet another candidate Ajay Khanna, whose candidature had also been rejected in the same selection has come by means of an independent writ petition in C.W.P. C.W.P. No.8577 of 2010 -3- No.14082 of 2010. He also has grievance about the manner of assessment and the award of marks given to him. He was particularly aggrieved about the fact that he held a power of attorney with reference to the 1/4th share of the property held by Smt. Vicky Khanna under a special power of attorney executed in his favour on 14.09.2005 and the same should have been taken note for his entitlement to the property to be awarded appropriate marks. According to the petitioner, 15 marks should have been awarded for property qualification and if the same is done, against the 79 marks awarded to him, it would go further increase of 15 marks and in such case he would have been declared as the most eligible candidate. The selection of the 2nd respondent Ms. Rama Sethi, according to the petitioner, was therefore wrong. Incidentally, Rama Sethi is also made as party as 4th respondent in C.W.P. No.8577 of 2010. 2. As far as the claim to right over the property through a power a power of attorney, it has been recently held by the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Suraj Lamp and Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Haryana and another 2011 (5) RAJ 397 that power of attorney by itself cannot operate as transfer of title of property. If the authority left out of reckoning the property status and did not award marks to the petitioner in C.W.P. No.14082 of 2010, no exception could be taken. The decision is perfectly justified and no interference is called for. The writ petition in C.W.P. No.14082 of 2010 deserves dismissal and accordingly dismissed. 3. As regards the contention raised by the petitioner in C.W.P. No.8577 of 2010, since the petitioner was contending that he had submitted the valuation relating to the property along with the C.W.P. No.8577 of 2010 -4- application and that he had also submitted the No Objection Certificate from the co-owner along with the petition, I had called for the production of original file. 4. As per the application, the requirement of the valuation of the property is the valuation certificate from Government approved valuer. Valuation certificate is said to have been issued by one Raakesh & 'Co. and he is stated to be a government approved valuer and the licence No.8493 has also been set forth in the certificate itself. The petitioner himself has stated in the application while filling column 13(C) that only a valuation report on an old rate is attached and valuation report of immoveable property on the date of advertisement has not been attached because the petitioner did not want to dispose of these properties rather the property is sought to be used for the project. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petroleum company points out to the fact that as per the brochure for selection of LPG distributorship which is to be taken as part of the advertisement conditions in the advertisement itself clearly stated that the valuation shall be as on the date of advertisement. If the petitioner has not given the valuation as on the date of advertisement, I will not still find that to be a reason for rejecting the certificate, for after all the property valuation in developing economies such as India does not go down while I will not make a proximation how much more valuable it could have been as on the date of the advertisement. The authority ought to have assumed that the valuation could not have been less than what was stated when the valuation was made in the year 2006. The valuation given by the approved valuer shows the property to be Rs.5 lacs on that date. The petitioner has filed an affidavit in C.M. No.7078 of 2010 C.W.P. No.8577 of 2010 -5- where he states that the Collector's valuation of the property with the superstructure will be Rs.29,48,600/-. I am not prepared to accept this, for what was evidence was not available along with application cannot be considered now. All that the petitioner to have been found entitled was an additional mark of one, which is the mark that could be assigned for valuation of property between Rs.3 lacs to 6 lacs. As far as the property that he held in co-ownership with his wife, admittedly the petitioner had not submitted a No Objection Certificate of the co-owner and if Corporation had, therefore, rejected the said property, it was in conformity with the Rules and the terms mentioned in the advertisement at the brochure. This one mark could not have made a difference to displace the selection of Ms. Rama Sethi as the selected candidate. 6. Even the contentions of the petitioner regarding the relative grading of marks for experience between the petitioner and the 4th respondent, I cannot find any fault. The petitioner's grievance is that he has been awarded only 2 marks for experience when he should have been awarded 5 marks. The justification found in the contentions of the respondent is that the petitioner was a Manager in the proprietorship firm of his wife namely M/s Star Agencies and he could not have been, therefore, taken as directly involved in the trade or retail with the customer. On the other hand as far as the 4th respondent is concerned, she had been working in Maharaja Gas Service between 31.10.2003 on a salary of Rs.2500/- and an experience certificate had been given by the 5th respondent. The 5th respondent himself has filed an independent written statement supporting the claim of the 4th respondent. The award of 4 marks awarded to the 4th respondent, therefore, conforms to C.W.P. No.8577 of 2010 -6- the parameters set down. 7. On an overall consideration, I do not find that there is any error in the selection of the 4th respondent. The same is upheld and the writ petition is dismissed. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE October 21, 2011 Pankaj*