IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.6598 of 2006 Sanjeev Kumar, son of Sri Bharat Prasad Singh, resident of village and Post Paharpur, P.S. Amnour, District Saran (Chapra). … Petitioner Versus 1. The Union Of India through Secretary, Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas. 2. The Director, Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas, Lok Sabha Secretariat, New Delhi 3. The Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited through its Senior Regional Manager (Retail), Lok Nayak Jai Prakash Bhawan, Dak Bunglow Chowk, Patna-1. 4. The Manager, R.E.M.S., Lok Nayak Jai Prakash Bhawan, 6th Floor, Dak Bunglow Chowk, Patna-1. 5. Mr. Dinesh Singh, son of late Ram Pujan Singh, resident of village Dhauri, Gopal Pargana Gouwa, P.S. Mashrakh, District Saran (Chapra) …Respondents ---------------------------------- For the Petitioner : M/s P. K. Jha and Alok Kumar Singh-2, Advocates. For Respondents no.3&4: Mr. L. N. Das, Advocate For Respondent no. 5 : M/s Bindhyachal Singh and Sachin Kumar, Advocates ---------------------------------- 05/ 12.12.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited (hereinafter referred to as `the Corporation’ for the sake of brevity) and learned counsel for private respondent no.5-Dinesh Singh. 2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for directing the respondent-Corporation to expeditiously decide the section of retail outlet dealership as per the advertisement published in daily newspaper, namely, Hindustan dated 11.08.2005 with respect to item no. 67, Amnour (Towards Sonho from Amnour Zero kilometer to 2 kilometer inside) and also for directing respondent no.3 to issue selection/appointment of retail outlet dealership in favour of the petitioner on the basis of genuine points, which is as per columns no. 2 8 and 9 of the advertisement as contained in Annexure 1 and also for necessary relief/ reliefs, for which the petitioner is found legally entitled. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that in response to the aforesaid advertisement dated 11.08.2005 altogether four persons filed their applications including the petitioner and respondent no. 5, whereafter interview was taken on 24.12.2005 and a select list was prepared on the same date, in which respondent no.5 was placed at serial no.1, whereas, the petitioner was placed at serial no.2 and the remaining two applicants were lowly placed at serial nos. 3 and 4. He also avers that the aforesaid select list shows that respondent no.5 obtained 94.25 marks out of 100 marks including full 35 marks for land/infrastructure, whereas, the petitioner was placed at serial no.2 having obtained 88.52 marks including full 35 marks for land/infrastructure. It is also claimed that the land offered by the petitioner is not in dispute, whereas, the land offered by respondent no.5, namely, portions of plots no. 208 and 207 are in dispute. 4. So far plot no. 208 is concerned, it is stated on behalf of the petitioner that it was recorded in the name of Jattadhari Chamar as Sikmi raiyat in the Khatian and the petitioner filed a petition before the Anchal Adhidkari on 27.12.2005 for issuance of a certificate with respect to the real position of the said plot, whereafter, on the same date i.e. on 27.12.2005 the Halka Karamchari and the Anchal Nirikshak reported to the Anchal Adhikari, on the basis of which a certificate was issued by the Anchal Adhikari on 27.12.2005 (Annexure 6 series) stating that Jattadhari Chamar was the Sikmidar of 3 the said land. 5. A Khatian has also been produced as part of Annexure 6 series, in which Sheo Prasad Singh was shown as raiyat, whereas, Jattadhari Chamar was shown as Sikmidar of the said plot. Hence learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the lease deed executed on 07.12.2005 (Annexure 5) by the son of Sheo Prasad Singh in favour of respondent no.5 with respect to the said land was illegal as the alleged lessor had no authority and right to execute the said lease deed or to transfer any right in the land in question to respondent no.5. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner further argues that the area of plot no. 208 given in the lease deed is 8 kathas, but in the lease deed only 4 kathas of the said plot have been given on lease and remaining 4 kathas have been mortgaged by the cousin of the lessor with the Bank in 2005 for taking tractor’s loan. 7. With respect to plot no. 207, learned counsel for the petitioner claims that lease deed dated 07.12.2005 has been executed by one Dilip Singh in favour of respondent no.5 although the land was a joint family property and the said lessor Dilip Singh was only a co- sharer, but no consent was taken from any other co-sharers and hence the said lease deed was also not legal and proper and on that basis no right could accrue by way of the said transfer to respondent no.5. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner also argues that on the basis of the said illegal lease deeds, no marks should have been allotted to respondent no.5 under the head `land/infrastructure’ and if the aforesaid marks are subtracted from the marks allotted to respondent no.5, he would be placed much below the petitioner. 4 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner also states that there was no paper before the authorities at the time of interview with respect to any partition in the family or any permission to the lessor by the co-sharers and hence marks allotted by the authorities to respondent no.5 were not legal and proper. He further submits that subsequently consent might have been taken, but Clause 12.1(f) of the advertisement clearly provided that no additional documents whatsoever will be accepted or considered after the cut off date of the application. Hence any material brought by respondent no.5 after the said cut off date should not have been considered by the authorities. 10. He also relies upon Clauses 4.4 and 12.1(i) of the said advertisement, which provided that the persons guilty of wilfully giving wrong information or making wrong statements will be liable to be disqualified and rejected at any stage. It is further stated by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has filed complaints before the authorities, which is apparent from Annexures 9 and 10 of the writ petition, but the same were not duly considered by the authorities as the respondent-authorities have merely stated in their counter affidavit that the Two Man Committee had rejected the petitioner’s complaints as not sustainable. 11. Learned counsel for the respondent-Corporation and learned counsel for the private respondent oppose the contentions of learned counsel for the petitioner. 12. From the arguments raised by learned counsel for the parties as well as from the materials on record, it is not in dispute that the recorded raiyat of plot no.208 was Sheo Prasad Singh, whereas, in 5 the old Khatian Jattadhari Chamar was shown as Sikmidar. It has been specifically claimed by the respondents that the said Sikmidar Jattadhari Chamar had died much before earth quake of 1934, whereafter there was no Sikmidar of the land in question and Sheo Prasad Singh and his heirs were in possession being duly mutated. None of the heirs of the said Sikmidar Jattadhari Chamar had approached the authorities of the Corporation or this Court against the leasing out of the land in question to respondent no.5. Furthermore, if only 4 kathas of land of plot no. 208 have been leased out to respondent no.5 that cannot be said to be an illegality therein as the successor in interest of Sheo Prasad Singh had the liberty to lease out the entire or any part of the land in question. In the said circumstances, the objection of the petitioner with respect to plot no. 208 is not at all sustainable in law. 13. So far plot no. 207 is concerned, it was leased out by Dilip Singh in favour of respondent no.5 vide deed of lease dated 07.12.2005 although learned counsel for the petitioner claimed that it belongs to the joint family and without consent of other co-sharers, no such lease deed can be held to be legal in law. It may be noted in this regard that if the land or share of a person is leased out by a co-sharer in favour of any one else, it is not a document, which can be said to be ab initio void, rather such document can be voidable at the instance of the affected persons. Other co-sharers as claimed by the petitioner are the only affected persons, but they have never raised any objection either before the authorities of the Corporation or before this Court, rather they have subsequently expressed their consent. In the said 6 circumstances merely at the instance of the petitioner, lease deed with respect to plot no. 207 cannot be held to be illegal. 14. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it is quite apparent that the marks given to respondent no.5 were quite legal and proper and the objection raised by the petitioner with respect thereto is absolutely frivolous and misconceived. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. MPS/ ( S. N. Hussain, J.)