IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 2137 of 2010 Date of decision: 12.10.2011 Nisha …. Petitioner Versus Union of India & others ….Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, J. Whether approved for reporting? No. For the petitioner: Mr. Dushyant Dadwal, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Sandeep Sharma, ASG for respondent No.1. Mr. B.N. Misra, Advocate, for respondents No. 2 and 3. Mr. S.R. Sharma, Advocate vice counsel for respondent No.4. _____________________________________________________ Deepak Gupta, J(oral) 1. By means of this petition, the petitioner has challenged the grant of letter of intent dated 1.5.2010 in favour of respondent No.4 Smt. Urmila Devi by respondent No.2 Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. for running a retail outlet dealership at Rohru. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that respondent No.2 Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. issued an advertisement on 5th October, 2009 in the Tribune and other papers inviting offers for transfer of land by way of outright, sale, lease for a minimum 2 period of 30 years in favour of Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd for setting up retail outlets at various locations. One of the locations mentioned at Serial No. 42 was Rohru, District Shimla in Himachal Pradesh. The advertisement contains certain conditions and condition No.(a) reads as follows:- “a) If the land is found suitable, the land owners of their nominees from which the family unit(as per Dealership Selection Guidelines) may be considered for award of dealership provided they meet the required eligibility criteria/norms.” 3. It is thus obvious that if the land of the applicant was found suitable, the land owner or his nominee from within the family unit could be considered for award of dealership if they otherwise met the eligibility criteria. Shri Swarn Singh Thakur, father of Urmila Devi offered his land on long term lease basis at rental of Rs.5,000/- per month vide letter dated 24th October, 2009 and he also indicated that the offer would be valid only if the dealership is awarded in favour of his Son Prabhat Thakur. Only one other person, namely, Shri Lokinder Singh Bisht made an offer and the land offered by Shri Lokinder Singh Bisht was about 1.5 Kms away from Rohru on the Rohru Narkanda Rampur State highway whereas the land offered by Shri Swarn Singh Thakur was on the 3 Rohru-Shimla Highway at a distance of approximately 1.2 Kms from the main Rohru bus stand. The Evaluation Committee of respondent No.2 Company found the land of Swarn Singh Thakur most suitable for grant of retail outlet. 4. It appears that at this stage Shri Swarn Singh Thakur made another offer that instead of the retail outlet being awarded in favour of his son, the same be awarded in favour of his daughter Urmila Devi and consequently an application on behalf of Urmila Devi alongwith requisite documents was filed on 22nd March, 2010. Thereafter letter of intent was issued which is under challenge. 5. The main challenge made by Shri Dushyant Dadwal, learned counsel for the petitioner, is that Urmila Devi had not submitted any application prior to 26.10.2009, which was the last date for submission of applications. He further submits that the applications were invited only for land and not for grant of dealership. Therefore, the Company should have invited fresh applications for grant of dealership. His last submission is that the land offered by Swarn Singh Thakur is not in Revenue circle Rohru but in Revenue circle Gangtoli and therefore, this could not have been accepted. In fact the petitioner Ms. Nisha claims that she is also owner of land in village Gangtoli and if the advertisement 4 had been clearer she would have also applied for grant of dealership. 6. As far as the first ground of challenge is concerned, in my opinion there is no merit in it. The advertisement clearly stated that only offers for sale, purchase or lease of the land were being invited but with the condition that if the land owner himself or through his nominee was interested in running the retail outlet then if the land owner or his nominee fulfilled the eligibility criteria the Company could consider granting him the said retail outlet. It is thus obvious that the Company is not bound to grant the retail outlet to the land owner or his nominee, but if the land owner meets the eligibility criteria the Company can grant retail outlet to the land owner or his nominee. This condition was incorporated in the advertisement and everybody was aware of the same. Therefore, any person owning land in the vicinity of Rohru could have applied and could have claimed that either the land be purchased outright or be leased out or could have also put in condition that he would lease out the land only if the retail outlet is granted to him or his nominee. 7. In the present case, in the very first offer, Shri Swarn Singh Thakur had clearly stated that his offer was subject to the condition that his son should get the retail outlet. His land was found most suitable and 5 thereafter he changed the nominee from his son to his daughter. The question of filing an application by the son or daughter would only arise after the land was found suitable. First the land has to be found suitable and then the Company can consider whether it should grant the retail outlet to the land owner or his family members or not. In certain cases, the Company may even though it may find the land suitable may not want to take the land on lease and may only make a counter offer for purchase of land. This is for the Company to decide but it is obvious that the application by the land owner or his nominee for running the retail outlet could only be filed once the land was found to be suitable. 8. The second contention raised by Shri Dushyant Dadwal is that the advertisement was only an advertisement inviting offers for transfer of land by way of purchase or lease and in the advertisement there was nothing to indicate that the retail outlet was being advertised. This argument is without force since Clause(a) quoted hereinabove clearly indicates that if the land owner or his family members are interested in running the retail outlet then the Company can grant retail outlet to the land owner or his nominee. If the retail outlet is granted to the land owner or his nominee there is no question of issuing fresh advertisement for grant of retail outlet. The 6 question of issuing a fresh advertisement would only arise in case the retail outlet is not granted to the land owner or his nominee or the Company itself is not interested in granting the same. If the retail outlet has to be awarded to the third party then obviously fresh advertisement would have to be issued. 9. The last contention raised by Shri Dushyant Dadwal is that Gangtoli is a separate revenue estate and the advertisement indicated that the location was to be Rohru. On going through the advertisement, I find that in certain locations the Company has been specific that the land should be within the Municipal Limit or on the left side or on the right side of the road. If nothing is specified in the advertisement then Rohru will have to be given its normal meaning as the people understand and it is not as if it is bound by Rohru Revenue Estate. Gangtoli falls within the planning area of Rohru and the retail outlet is at a distance of 1.2 Kms from the centre of Rohru town. The Sabji Mandi and the Apple Processing Centre are further away from the town than the proposed site. When commercial transactions are advertised, the commercial meaning has to be kept in mind and when there was no specific condition that Rohru would only mean Rohru revenue village the areas which form part of Rohru 7 Town as it exists must be deemed to be included. In any event this is something for the Company to decide and nobody else can dictate its terms. Therefore, I find no merit in the petition. Hence the same is dismissed. 10. Before parting with the case, I must observe that I had called for the records but I find that the file produced by the Company is not at all properly maintained. There is no paging on the file. There is no noting sheet attached with the file. There is nothing to indicate as to which document came earlier and which came later. This Court can call for the record for inspection of documents at any stage. Therefore, respondent No.2 Company is directed to ensure that in future all the files relating to grant of retail or other outlets under any scheme, are maintained in a proper manner and there should be proper paging and noting sheets to indicate that when such document has been placed on such files. 11. The interim order stands vacated. No costs. October 12, 2011 (Deepak Gupta) (vt) Judge