IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.175 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision: 27.09.2011 Bhawna Yadav wife of Shri Sangeet Yadav, resident of House No.3126/108, Company Bagh, Gali No.7, Rewari, Haryana. ...Petitioner versus Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited, Registered Office 17, Jamshedji TATA Road Mumbai 40020, 6-7th Floor, North Tower, Scope Minar, District Centre, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi-110092, Tel.(o) 22408100, and others. ....Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN ---- Present: Mr. Sushil Jain, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Anil Malhotra, Advocate, for respondents 1 and 2. None for respondent No.3. ---- 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? No. 2. To be referred to the reporters or not ? No. 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest ? No. ---- K.Kannan, J. (Oral) 1. The writ petition challenges the denial of allotment to the petitioner for a retail outlet of a petrol pump owned by the 1st respondent. In the manner of relative grading of various candidates, the petitioner had been awarded '0' marks for details relating to property, while the 3rd respondent, to whom the contract had been awarded, had been given '34.30' marks. Civil Writ Petition No.175 of 2011 (O&M) - 2 - 2. The grievance of the petitioner is that the petitioner had submitted necessary documents showing the entitlement of the petitioner as a lessee from Dhirender son of Ramanand and Ramanand son of Ganga Ram, but the proof rendered had been rejected by the fact that the landlords, who had created the lease, were not exclusive owners, but they were co-owners with two other persons and the No Objection Certificate (NOC) from the other co-owners had not been submitted along with the application. The petitioner's contention is that in relation to smaller portion of the property that belonged to the same very persons and in respect of which lease had been taken by one Omesh Yadav and Neeti Yadav, at an earlier occasion, the respondent had found the documentary details as sufficient and had awarded appropriate marks and had not denied the consideration of a valid lease hold right, but for the first time, the respondents 1 and 2 have unjustly rejected out of reckoning the lease hold property in the hands of the petitioner. 3. The learned counsel on behalf of the Corporation would contend that the incident of earlier favourable consideration of the lease hold from some only of the co-owners was not to be cited as a precedent for him, since the decision was wrongly made and the Investigating Officer had advised that the previous assessment made for Omesh Yadav and Neeti Yadav was wrong and they ought not to have been given any marks. It is further contended by Shri Malhotra, counsel for the petitioner, that the advertisement specifically Civil Writ Petition No.175 of 2011 (O&M) - 3 - contained a reference to the guidelines of Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited (HPCL) has to be read and applicable to every candidate, who was making an application and as per the guidelines for selection of retail outlet dealers, it was provided through clause 16 that in respect of lands and finance parameters, if it was owned by the applicant or members of family unit jointly with third persons, the consent letter on stamp paper or an affidavit or POA of third persons was required to qualify for marks. The reference was in the context of the justification for rejection of the claim made by the petitioner, who sought to prove his claims over the property as a lessee from two of the co-owners but the two other co-owners had not given the consent or affidavit or POA as required under the guidelines. 4. As regards the first contention that on an earlier occasion in relation to the property offered by Omesh Yadav and Neeti Yadav, the lease from the same set of co-owners had been accepted cannot at all times be cited if the respondents themselves agreed that they have made a mistake. An event which could have been shown as a valid admission is always open to explanation but this could still be relevant for how the petitioner had allowed himself to be misled into thinking that it was sufficient. 5. The second objection is that the petitioner had not followed the guidelines and if he had failed to give the consent letter from other co-owners along with his application, the rejection was Civil Writ Petition No.175 of 2011 (O&M) - 4 - justified, for the Corporation was not expected to rely on documents submitted later. I would find this as a prefect defence to deny the petitioner the consideration of marks for the property parameters but the counsel for the petitioner points out that the 3rd respondent had been treated differently and he was also a lessee of only two of the co-owners of the property with no concurrence or consent from the other co-owners at the time when the application was filed. From the perusal of records, it is seen that the 3rd respondent has produced in proof of the possession of the property a lease from Vijay and Anil sons of Banwari Lal, the property is situate in Khewat No.44, Khatauni No.58, Land No.39 and kill no.19(7-4) in respect of 107/144 share that works out to 5 kanal-7 marlas in Village Pavti, Tehsil Babal, District Rewari, said to be in the possession of the lessors. The counsel for the Petroleum Company would explain that the property had been exclusively mutated to the lessors under mutation No.559 and being a specific allotment and enjoyment in the hands of the lessors, there was no requirement of any consent or affidavit from co-owners. I have examined the document and I find that the property is shown only as joint property with every other persons, namely, Balwant Singh, Ram Niwas, Sher Singh being the sons and Kimti and Bhaboti being the daughters, each of whom was entitled an equal 1/5th share and one Amir Chand was yet another 1/5th sharer. The extent of entitlement bearing to the lessors' share is no doubt 5 kanal-7 marlas but I have no reason to believe that this Civil Writ Petition No.175 of 2011 (O&M) - 5 - was any specific extent that could stand predicated to their share. A State functionality has to act to the dictates of Article 14 and the consideration of how a joint property were to be made shall also be applied in the same fashion for all the applicants. While I will not state that the petitioner had complied with the requirements to obtain a favourable consideration for the property ownership, by the same token of logic, the 3rd respondent could not have also been allotted marks for favourable consideration for dealership. 6. The counsel for the Corporation states that the there were only two applications for consideration and, therefore, a fresh consideration has to be undertaken only on the relative grading between the petitioner and the 3rd respondent alone. The Corporation shall undertake the exercise of choosing the eligible candidate for dealership in accordance with the guidelines and the decision shall be taken within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 7. The writ petition is disposed of as above. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE 27.09.2011 sanjeev