Case: Nabin Kumar Sahu Vs. Indian Oil Corporation and Ors

2. The facts, in brief, are as follows:i) On 20.10.2009, an advertisement was published by the Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. (for short the IOCL) in different newspapers inviting applications for awarding LPG Distributorship under the Rajiv Gandhi Gramin LPG Vitrak Scheme (for short the Scheme) among different locations in the State of Orissa and village Laikera in the District of Jharsuguda, was one of themii) IOCL also published a Brochure on Selection of the Scheme prescribing Eligibility Criteria for all the categoriesiii) After scrutiny of the applications received, IOCL found five candidates having qualified for draw for Distributorship under the said Scheme, which included the Appellant herein and Respondent No. 4iv) The successful applications participated in the draw of lot and Respondent No. 4 herein was declared as a selected candidate for the Distributorshipv) In terms of the relevant clauses of the Scheme, field verification was carried out by the officer concerned and found that the land offered by Respondent No. 4 did not meet the minimum required dimension (24 m x 20 m) and submitted a report on the basis of which, IOCL decided to cancel the candidature of Respondent No. 4 and informed him about the rejection of his candidaturevi) The IOCL in terms of para 6.8 of the Scheme decided to hold re-draw for allotment of Distributorship and communicated its decision to the Appellant hereinvii) In the meantime, Respondent No. 4 herein filed a Writ Petition before the High Court against IOCL praying for allotment of Distributorship to him based on the previous draw and for quashing of lottery scheduled to be heldviii) The High Court directed that further process of allotment of Distributorship in favour of eligible candidates shall be subject to the outcome of the Writ Petitionix) The IOCL conducted re-draw with respect to remaining four eligible candidates and the Appellant herein was declared successful. After completion of field verification by concerned Official in terms of the Scheme, the Letter of Intent was issued in favour of the Appellant hereinx) The Appellant herein filed Intervention Application before the High Court which was allowed and he was accordingly impleaded as party Respondent before the High Courtxi) After hearing the parties, the High Court held that the award of dealership by IOCL in favour of the Appellant herein is bad in law as he was not a permanent resident of Village Laikera. The High Court further held that the Respondent No. 4 herein also did not fulfill the eligibility criteria and hence dismissed the writ petition filed by him and directing the IOCL to re-invite the tender in question and re-do the selection process and thereafter, award the Distributorship in favour of eligible personsxii) Being aggrieved, the Appellant preferred this appeal, by way of special leave.

Reasoning:
6. We have perused the impugned judgment passed by the High Court as well as the material available on record i.e. the advertisement and copy of brochure mentioning the eligibility criteria issued by the IOCL. We have also considered the affidavit filed on behalf of the IOCL7. After considering the facts of the case in question and taking into account Clause 3(b) of the advertisement which states that the applicant should be a resident of the town/village which is a condition precedent for appointment under the Scheme, we find that the Appellant has fulfilled the eligibility criteria as required in accordance with the advertisement published. Furthermore, it would be evident from the affidavit of IOCL, they supported the claim of the Appellant8. It is also pertinent to mention that the Appellant herein is an "ordinary resident" (de-facto resident) of Village Laikera actually which is evident from the certificate issued by the concerned Tahsildar. This fact has been reiterated and reconfirmed on an enquiry made by the IOCL and moreover the Appellant herein is a registered voter of village Laikera. However, the Appellant herein has been shown in the resident certificate being a "permanent resident" (de jure resident) of Village Kulemura, for the reasons that he has certain ancestral properties in that Village9. In our opinion, the High Court failed to appreciate the fact that the Distributorship in the present case has been advertised at the place of ordinary resident of the applicant i.e. Village Laikera and the Appellant was eligible and was rightly awarded the dealership by the IOCL.