E.S.A. No. 34 of 2010(O&M) -1- In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh E.S.A. No. 34 of 2010(O&M) Date of Decision:September 30, 2010 Jaibir Singh ---Appellant versus Indian Oil Corporation Limited ---Respondent Coram: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH *** Present: Mr.Vikram Sheoran, Advocate, for the appellant *** GURDEV SINGH, J. C.M.No. 11483 -C of 2010 Heard. For the reasons stated in the application, supported by an affidavit, which amounts to sufficient cause, delay in filing the appeal is condoned. Application stands disposed of accordingly. ESA No. 34 of 2010(O&M) This appeal by Jaibir Singh, appellant, is directed against order dated 8.2.2010 passed by Additional District Judge, Bhiwani, vide which the appeal preferred by him against the order dated 23.11.2009, passed by Additional Civil Judge(Senior Division), Loharu, for execution of the decree, passed in his favour in Civil Suit No. 378 of 2007 on 9.5.2009 by that Court, was dismissed. The facts, in brief, are that an advertisement was got published E.S.A. No. 34 of 2010(O&M) -2- in the Newspaper by the respondent-defendant for the appointment of Retail Outlet Dealership of Kisan Sewa Kender. In pursuance of that advertisement, the appellant made an application and also deposited the requisite fee of ` 1000/-. A team constituted by the respondent- Corporation, conducted inspection of the site, so offered by the appellant for the installation of the Kisan Sewa Kender. He was not called for appointment of that dealership and fresh applications were invited by the respondent, vide advertisement dated 17.7.2007. In respect of the request made by him to the respondent, dealership was not allotted to him. Therefore, he filed suit for declaration to the effect that he was eligible and was entitled for appointment as a dealer in pursuance of the advertisement issued on 12.8.2006. The suit was contested by the respondent and it was pleaded in the written statement that the name of village Lal Ki Dhani, as mentioned in the advertisement dated 12.8.2006 at Sr. No. 60, did not exist in the revenue record and the plaintiff had filed Jamabandi and Khasra Girdawari of village Sehar. The fresh advertisement dated 17.7.2007 was only for the dependent female member of the deceased defence personal. No application was received against that quota and as such, the advertisement was released for two Kisan Sewa Kender Retail Outlets at the location of village Sehar; one under open category and the other under the defence women category. The plaintiff can avail of that opportunity and can apply afresh for the allotment of the dealership under the fresh advertisement. After the parties produced their evidence and the arguments were heard, the suit of the plaintiff was decreed partly. A direction was issued to the respondent to consider the case of the appellant under the latest guidelines laid and for E.S.A. No. 34 of 2010(O&M) -3- disposing of the the same within two months of the passing of the judgment. That direction was not complied with and accordingly, the appellant filed an application for the execution of the decree, which was dismissed by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division)Loharu, vide order dated 23.11.2009, in view of the statement made by the respondent, that application of the appellant was decided to the effect that the disputed site of allotment has been cancelled on technical grounds. The appellant preferred an appeal against that order of the Executing Court, which was dismissed vide the impugned order dated 8.2.2010. It is very much clear from the orders of the Executing Court and the First Appellate Court that in pursuance of the decree passed in favour of the plaintiff, his application was considered and was dropped on the ground that the advertisement in pursuance of which that application was given, was withdrawn and fresh advertisement was issued. The application made by the appellant in pursuance of the advertisement was the offer made by him and it was open to the respondent to accept that offer or not. No contract exists between the parties and that offer was never accepted. The First Appellate Court itself made observation in the impugned order by issuing a direction in the impugned order itself to consider the case of the appellant in case the fresh advertisement of the same place is to be made within a period of three years. That order does not suffer from any infirmity or illegality. There is no merit in the appeal and the same is hereby dismissed. (GURDEV SINGH) JUDGE September 30, 2010 PARAMJIT