In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh L.P.A. No. 964 of 2011 Date of Decision: May 27, 2011 Rupinder Chaudhary ---Appellant versus Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited and others ---Respondents Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH *** Present: Mr. N.K.Setia, Advocate, for the appellant *** 1. To be referred to the Reporter or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? M.M.Kumar, J. 1. The instant appeal under Clause X of the Letters Patent is directed against the judgment dated 5.5.2011 rendered by learned Single Judge holding that the appellant has rightly been awarded 25 marks as against the claim made by him for 35 marks. 2. The criteria for awarding marks is based on various parameters concerning the 'own land' or having land on long lease, as per guidelines provided for selection of retail outlet dealers. Under Clause (b) of para 16, parameters for land and infrastructure, maximum 35 marks have been allocated both for individual and non-individual. According to description of land given maximum 35 marks have been allocated. The first category comprises those L.P.A. No. 964 of 2011 -2- who have their own land. The first category also includes those who have land on long lease(registered) for minimum period of 15 years with a further renewal option of 15 years. The other condition is that the owners must be willing to lease land to HPCL on long term basis and on rent acceptable to HPCL. The valuation is to be undertaken on verification of the land titleship documents . The question is whether the appellant is covered by the first category of persons who are entitled to 35 marks. 3. A perusal of the lease deed dated 25.11.2010(Annexure P-2) would show that the land has been taken by the appellant from Sh. Krishan Kumar on lease for a period of 15 years. There is no covenant in lease deed to the effect that after initial 15 years, there is an option given to the lessee to extend the lease deed for another 15 years. Apart from the above, the condition showing willingness to give to HPCL on long term lease at rent acceptable to it, has also not been incorporated. Therefore, the case of the appellant has been considered only under the heading “firm offer” of land and he has been rightly awarded 25 marks. 5. Accordingly, we are of the view that the learned Single Judge has committed no error of law by holding that 25 marks have rightly been allocated to the appellant. There is, thus, no merit in the appeal and the same is dismissed accordingly. (M.M.KUMAR) JUDGE (GURDEV SINGH) JUDGE May 27, 2011 paramjit -