IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.1619 of 2009 ---- Anita Mittal, wife of Pawan Kumar, Resident of Mohalla, G.N.Ganj, Commercial Chowk, Police Station-Laheriasarai, District-Darbhanga (Bihar). --Petitioner-Appellant. Versus 1. The Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. through its Chairman, 17 Jamshedji Tata Road, Mumbai-400020. 2. The Chairman, 17 Jamshedji Tata Road, Mumbai-4000 20. 3. The Divisional General Manager, The Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. 10 Industries House, Camak Streed, Kolkata-01. 4. The Senior Regional Manager, The Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd./ Patna L.P.G. Region, 6th floor, Loknayak Jai Prakashs Bhawan, Dak Bunglow Chowk, Patna-01. 5. Smt. Shipra, wife of Sri Ashok Kumar C/o Sri Arjun Kumar Singh, Babu Saheb Colony, Kabilpur, Laheriasarai, Darbhanga-846001. -Respondents-Respondents. ---- For the appellant : Mr. Bindhyachal Singh with Mr. Satya Prakash, Advocates. For the respondents- : Mr. Rabindra Nath Kanth, Advocate. Corporation ---- Present: THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVA KIRTI SINGH ---- O R D E R ( 27.01.2010) As per Dipak Misra, C.J.- Being grieved and dissatisfied with the order dated 20th November, 2009 passed by the learned Single Judge in CWJC No.6541 of 2009, the appellant-petitioner has preferred this appeal under clause 10 of the Letters Patent. - 2 - 2. The appellant invoked the jurisdiction of this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issue of a writ of certiorari for quashment of the result and the consequent panel issued on 31.12.2008 by the Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited (For short, „the Corporation‟), the 1st respondent herein, for selection of dealer for LPG distributorship for Bahadurpur in the district of Darbhanga. 3. As the factual matrix would exposit an advertisement was published in the local newspaper „Hindustan‟ on 17.10.2007 inviting applications from eligible candidates for award of LPG distributorship. The distributorship located at Bahadurpur was reserved for women, in open category. Various parameters and requirements were prescribed in the advertisement as well as the guidelines. The brochure for selection of candidates for the distributorship was brought on record as Annexure-2 which stipulated how the marks are to be awarded in favour of the candidates. It was contended before the writ court that the marks awarded in favour of the writ petitioner pertaining to availability of suitable land was incorrect inasmuch as she was awarded 7 marks despite the factum she had offered the land which belongs to the joint family and it stood in the name of her father-in-law and after his death in the year 1987, her husband inherited the same along with other family members. The said land which was offered by the - 3 - petitioner was about 10,000 Sq.ft and the requirement was only 1000 Sq.ft and even if the share is taken into consideration it comes to 3,300 Sq.ft. Additionally, it was put forth that no objection was given by the family members of the husband which was appended to the application and, therefore, it was obligatory on the part of the Corporation to constitute as a firm offer and award 10 marks and that having not been done the action of the Corporation is sensitively susceptible. 4. Resisting the aforesaid submissions of the writ petitioner it was contended by the Corporation that the procedure for selection of HP Gas distributorship clearly defines the term „own‟ which means having clear ownership of title of the property or on long lease (minimum 15 years) in the name of family members as has been defined in eligibility criteria/multiple distributorship norm duly supported by the documents. In the multiple distributorship clause „Family Unit‟ is defined to mean in case of married person/applicant shall consist of individual concerned, his/her spouse and their unmarried son(s)/daughter(s). It has been further stipulated therein that in case of unmarried person/ applicant, it is supposed to include individual with his or her parents coupled with his or her unmarried brother(s) and unmarried sister(s). - 4 - 5. The learned Single Judge adverted to the rivalised submissions raised at the Bar and came to hold the marks awarded in favour of the writ petitioner was in accord with the conditions of the advertisement and the criteria and, therefore, there was no illegality in the selection process. 6. We have heard Mr. Bindhyachal Singh, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Rabindra Nath Kanth, learned counsel for the Corporation. 7. Be it noted, on the basis of the order dated 12.01.2010, the learned counsel for the Corporation, had produced the file relating to the allotment of marks pertaining to selection dated 18.01.2010. On scrutiny of the same it transpires that the appellant had secured 89.3 marks, whereas selected candidate had secured 90.2 marks. 8. Mr. Singh, learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the award of marks by the Corporation is absolutely arbitrary inasmuch as the brochure clearly lays down how the marks have to be awarded and when the appellant had submitted an offer that her husband had 1/3rd share in the joint family property and other brothers had no objection, the selection committee should have been well advised to award 10 marks instead of 7 marks. The submission of learned counsel for the appellant is that the learned Single Judge has committed an illegality by expressing the opinion that no definite - 5 - share could be ascertained and, therefore, the marks awarded by the Corporation cannot be flawed. It was urged by him had the appellant been awarded 10 marks, which was due to her, then she would have obtained higher marks than the selected candidate and in the ultimate eventuate would have been selected. 9. To appreciate the rivalised submissions raised at the Bar, we have carefully perused the order passed by the learned Single Judge and scanned the anatomy of the brochure. Clause 14.1 deals with allocation of marks on various parameters by Level-I Committee based on the information/statements given in the application. The relevant part of the said clause is reproduced below:- Parameter Sub Head Capability to provide Infrastructure and facilities (as on the date of application) Suitable land/shop for showroom Description Max marks Evaluation Owns@ Having clear title/ registered Sale Deed of the suitable land/shop for showroom 10 Based on the information & statement given in the application Or Firm offer @-Having agreement to purchase suitable land / shop for showroom 7 Based on the information & statement given in the application Or Can arrange 5 Based on the information & statement given in the application. - 6 - 10. On a perusal of the same it is quite clear a person who has clear title is entitled to be awarded 10 marks and a person who has given firm offer is to be awarded 7 marks and a candidate who can arrange is entitled to be given 5 marks. That apart, the term used is „owns‟. The said term has been defined in the brochure. It reads as under:- “ Own means having clear ownership title of the property or on long leased (minimum 15 yrs) in the name of family member as defined in eligibility criteria/multiple distributorship norm duly supported by documents.” 11. The term „firm offer‟ has also been defined. The same is as follows:- “Firm offers means as agreement on stamp paper for sale or lease (minimum 15 yrs) between the applicant and the owner duly supported by documents.” 12. Clause 4.4. Occurs in the heading eligibility criteria for all categories. It deals with multiple distributorship norm. The said clause is reproduced below:- “4.4.MULTIPLE DISTRIBUTORSHIP NORM (RELATIONSHIP CLAUSE) Multiple Dealer/Distributorship norms means that none of the individuals would be entitled to a new dealership/distributorship if any other individual in a „family unit‟ already holds a dealership/distributorship or LOI for a dealership/distributorship of a PSU oil company i.e. Only one Retail Outlet/ SKO-LDO dealership/ LPG distributorship of PSU oil company will be allowed to a „family unit‟. Family Unit in case of married person/ applicant shall consist of individual concerned, his/her Spouse and their unmarried son(s)/daughter(s). In case of unmarried person/applicant, „Family Unit‟ shall consist of individual concerned, his/her - 7 - parents and his/her unmarried brother(s) and unmarried sister(s).” 13. On an analysis of the aforesaid clauses, it can be stated with certitude that the offer of the appellant would not come in the first category. It was an offer on the basis of a share in the joint family property. The whole claim is based on the basis of inheritance. The learned Single Judge has rightly held that her husband has a common interest in the joint family which he would inherit along with his brothers and sisters and, therefore, she has justifiably been not awarded 10 marks. He has also taken note of the stand in the counter affidavit. We have also studiedly scrutinized the stand in the counter affidavit wherein it has been asserted that the case of the petitioner did not fall in the concept of „family unit‟ as defined under clause 4.4. and further „clear ownership‟. That apart, to avoid inconvenience in the establishment of distributorship and any interference and obstruction in course of running of the business, because of jointness of interest which may encourage the control of business going to the hands of others and give rise to land dispute and undue interference by the other co-sharers, the terms „family unit‟, „owns‟ and „relationship clause‟ have been prescribed. In view of the aforesaid, we are of the considered opinion, marks awarded in favour of the appellant cannot really be faulted as that is in accord with the brochure and further it justifies the commercial interest inherent in the policy. - 8 - 14. In view of the aforesaid premises, the order passed by the learned Single Judge does not warrant any interference and, accordingly, we concur with the same. Consequently, the Letters Patent Appeal, being devoid of merit, stands dismissed without any order as to costs. ( Dipak Misra, C.J.) (Shiva Kirti Singh, J.) Patna High Court. The 27th January, 2010. N.A.F.R. Sunil