Case: Vilas Vs. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited

1. Both these petitions challenge the rejection of offers submitted by respective petitioners to the respondents / Oil Company, in pursuance of the public invitation in various newspapers in September 2013. This advertisement was published in Daily Lokmat on 29th September 2013, and last date for submitting the application wasAs the petitioners have found not eligible and the grounds are common, we have heard both the matters together, by issuing Rule and making it returnable forthwith with consent of parties.The fact, that both the petitioners filed their applications before last date, is not in dispute. Claim of petitioner Vilas Chaudhari in W.P. No.9467/2014, has not been entertained on the ground that he offered a showroom land held on registered lease agreement for 15 years fromwhile requirement was to have the same for minimum 15 years from last date of submission of application i.e.The petitioner thereafter submitted a representation onand pointed out that necessary correction deed has been executed between parties. He also submitted that document. The said representation has been rejected on 7th October 2014, maintaining the earlier stance.4. Other petitioner, namely, Ramakant Magar, challenges order datedHe has been informed that he did not have a registered lease agreement for godown and showroom, for minimum 15 years as onThe Oil Company has pointed out that as per stipulation in advertisement, lease deed needed to be valid up toand his agreement was valid only up toOther reason given is, affidavit in relation to godown and showroom was not executed by landlord as required by Appendix IV.Writ Petition No.9467/2014 has been amended as per court orders datedo incorporate a challenge that the petitioner ought to have been given an opportunity to cure the deficiency about shortfall in lease duration.

Reasoning:
11. The ground in relation to affidavit of land owner mentioned in communication dated 19th August 2014, forming subject matter of challenge in Writ Petition filed by Ramakant Magar can be dealt with first. Perusal of Clause No.6.1 of the guidelines for selection reveal that at page 7 of said book of guidelines, with reference to(vii) and (viii) of this Clause 6.1, there is a clarification. The first part of clarification points out the meaning of word own. Paragraph thereafter is regarding the land jointly owned by applicants. It states that if such land is jointly owned and share of land in the name of applicant meets the requirement of land including dimensions required, that land for godown / showroom also qualifies for examining eligibility as own land, subject to submission of no objection certificate in the form of a notarized affidavit from its other owners. The proforma of this notarized affidavit is given in Appendix IV. It specifically stipulates that all the joint owners / joint lessees of land except the applicant have to submit their individual affidavit. Thus, this affidavit is essential only when it is shown that land offered does not belong exclusively to Ramakant and some other persons also have interest in or title to it. PetitionerRamakant in his affidavit has pointed out this positionhis sole ownership. However, the same appears not to have been looked into. There is nothing on record to show that land offered by petitioner was not available exclusively to him and there are any joint holders. The rejection of his application on the said ground, therefore, is unsustainable.The opportunity to rectify deficiencies within specified period of time is contemplated in Clause 8.5. It is obvious, that deficiencies can come to light only after the envelope is opened. Envelope is to be submitted by an individual who fulfills the eligibility criteria. Thus, one who does not fulfill said criteria, cannot submit that envelope. The word deficiencies, therefore, will have to be understood as used in contrast with eligibility criteria. Not possessing any of eligibility criterion, therefore, cannot be allowed to be cured or amended by taking recourse to Clause 8.5.19. We have considered the judgment of the Honble Apex Court, in the case of Girnar Traders Vs. State of Maharashtraothers (supra), cited by the learned Senior Advocate, and perused paragraphs 55 and 56 therein. The Honble Larger Bench of Apex Court has considered the scheme of Section 127 of the Maharashtra RegionalTown Planning Act, 1966, stipulation of time within which notice for acquisition can be given and purpose of providing such time limit in the scheme of enactment. We are unable to connect said precedent with present facts.Here, the reference to point of time, in brochure has been noted by us supra. While prescribing eligibility criteria in relation to education qualification, age or disqualification being a member of a family, the requirement has beenwith date of application. While specifying ownership of a land, it has been connected to the last date for submission of application. This change in date for examination of eligibility is not argued to be either arbitrary or otherwise unsustainable before us. Similarly, when concept of "owning" is explained, the requirement is of lease agreement for minimum 15 years. This word minimum also becomes significant. Intention behind specifying two different dates while undertaking scrutiny or relevance of last date prescribed for submission of application emphasized by word "minimum" establish that duration of lease held as on last date is an essential condition.22. The requirement of having registered lease agreement for minimum 15 years has beento as on the last date for submission of application. Thus, having a registered lease agreement for minimum 15 years, is the qualification which individual must possess on the last date for submission of application i.e.in the present facts. Both the petitioners do not satisfy this. The brochure mandates having lease for minimum 15 years onand this is an eligibility condition. It cannot be viewed here, as a collateral orcondition. It is an essential term of the tender.23. Having a registered lease for minimum 15 years, as onitself implies that lease must be valid for 15 years next from the said last date. A person who has sometime in the past entered into a registered lease and obtained it for a period of 15 years from the date of execution thereof in his favour cannot contend that he has got a registered lease agreement for 15 years. Hypothetically, a person who has entered into a registered lease agreement, for a period of 15 years, on 31st October 1998, can legitimately urge that he has an agreement of 15 years of lease with him onMerely possessing an agreement is not sufficient to meet the eligibility norm as prescribed by Oil Company in the present matter. The stipulation along with its clarification makes it clear that lease agreement has to be for a duration of minimum 15 years next, and that period of 15 years has to be calculated after the last date i.e.Considering the purpose for which advertisement is issued and the nature of business for which petitioners aspire, it is abundantly clear that the minimum period of 15 years sought for by Oil Company cannot be said to be irrelevantunfair. The Oil Company is free to decide said period and terms and conditions of contract. Unless and until this selection of period is shown to be perverse or arbitrary, or with any oblique motive, the same cannot be judicially reviewed by this court. This unambigious stipulation in the advertisement / brochure document, therefore, needs to be honoured.At Nagpur, Division Bench, onconsidered a challenge in Writ Petition No.282 of 2014. That Division Bench found that the petitioner before it, should have furnished the document of title of members of his family unit or a lease deed for a period of 15 years in his name and hence, rejection of his offer by Oil Company was found correct. The Division Bench also looked into Clause 8.5 of the guidelines and held that only where there was any minor technical defect in the application, it could have been allowed to be corrected. Very same Bench has, a day earlier, i.e. on 9th October 2014, allowed about 21 Writ Petitions i.e. Writ Petition No.2812/2014 with connected matters. There the challenge as is being looked into by us, has been considered in the background of Clause 8.5. Oil Company had rejected the applications of those petitioners on the ground that though lease period was required to be of 15 years, as on last date of submission of application; in all cases, it was short by few days. The shortfall was between one day to 7 days. The Division Bench at Nagpur has noted that the petitioners before it had entered into lease deeds with the owners of the property for a period of 15 years, either on the last date of submission of application onor within a period of 7 days preceding the date of filing of the application. At page 22, the Division Bench has recorded its finding in the background of guidelines in force till year 2012. Old guidelines did not provide for submission of a lease deed for a period of 15 years from the last date for submission of application. It appears that the Oil Companies till then required only a lease deed for a period of 15 years. Said Division Bench then found that the stipulation in 2013 guidelines resulted in some confusion. It has mentioned that this confusion resulted in filing of petitions before various High Courts in the country.28. The parties before this Court have not pointed out the judgments delivered by other High Courts on said Clause. The Division Bench at Nagpur has mentioned some internal communications between offices of Oil Companies and looking to the confusion in the mind of office bearers of Oil Company, it felt that the petitioners needed to be given an opportunity to produce the correction deed by invoking Clause 8.5 of the guidelines of 2013. No such communications revealing any confusion are pointed out to us. The Division Bench was not required to consider whether deficiencies contemplated in Clause 8.5 also includedextended to the eligibility norms. The judgment of Honble Apex Court, in the case of Rashmi Metalinks Limitedanother (supra) was also not pressed into service before said Bench.29. In the light of arguments advanced before us, we find that the eligibility norm of having a registered lease deed for minimum 15 years, as on the last date for submission of application, cannot be construed as deficiency, and as it is essential term, an opportunity in terms of Clause 8.5 cannot be extended.30. In this situation, rejection of application of both the petitioners, on the ground that they have failed to satisfy eligibility norm, cannot be faulted with.