Sunita Gupta vs Union Of India & Ors

3. The facts in brief are stated hereunder:

4. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant filed Writ Petition No.5199 of 2007 praying for a writ of certiorari to quash the orders dated 27.7.2006 and 26.12.2006. The relief of writ of mandamus has also been sought to direct the respondents for issuing a letter of intent to the appellant in pursuance of her selection dated 3.3.2006 for retail outlet dealership at Islam Nagar-Bisauli Marg, and further to direct the respondents to issue necessary HSD and MSD for her retail outlet dealership. Prior to this, the appellant filed W.P No. 56740 of 2006 praying for quashing of order dated 27.7.2006. The High Court, vide order dated 12.10.2006, directed the appellant to file a fresh comprehensive representation along with the certified copy of the order as well as a complete copy of the writ petition with all Annexures before the concerned competent authority within two weeks from the date of the order and on such a representation being filed as stipulated, the concerned competent authority shall decide the same within eight weeks of the receipt of the representation by means of a reasoned order. Subsequent to this, vide order dated 26.12.2006, the respondent-Corporation constituted a review committee and stated that the land held by the appellant is jointly held in her husband’s name along with four others and consent letter from her husband and his father have been obtained, but not from the other owners. Accordingly, the appellant’s representation was held to be disposed off in compliance of the order of the High Court dated 12.10.2006. The appellant being aggrieved by the aforesaid orders has filed the present appeal, urging certain legal and factual grounds.

In our considered viewpoint, this approach of the respondents was erroneous as the application form of the appellant was initially accepted along with the consent letters of her husband and father-in-law to whom the land belonged and the site visit was completed satisfactorily and she was called in for the interview. After the interview, her name was on top of the results list and she was shown as selected. She was awarded 35 marks under the head ‘Land and Infrastructure’. Later, the respondents made an about turn and declared that she was ineligible as she had given the consent letters of the co-owners after the due date and hence, the marks awarded under ‘Land and Infrastructure’ were reduced to zero. Hence, the review order passed by the respondents is bad in law as the appellant was originally found to have fulfilled all the criteria for the land offered which was greater in area than the land required as per the rules and guidelines of the respondent Corporation. The review committee, on a mere technicality, denied the appellant her right to the dealership, after it was previously declared that she was selected for the same. It is evident that the documents the appellant provided at first were seen to be sufficient, and the fact that she chose to give some additional documents to buttress her application cannot be a ground to nullify her appointment, given that clause 14, ‘Preference for applicants offering suitable land’ of the HPCL “Guidelines for Selection of Retail Outlet Holders” details that the land owned by the family members namely spouse/unmarried children will also be considered subject to the consent of the concerned family member. Since, in this case, the land was owned by her husband and father-in-law, she gave their consent letters along with the application form within the due date. We feel that the appellant has sufficiently met the conditions of the application and the respondent Corporation has erred in subsequently cancelling the appointment on a flimsy technicality and has acted in an arbitrary and unfair manner. It is relevant to quote the case of Mahabir Auto Stores & Ors. v. Indian Oil Corporation and Ors.[1], wherein it was held that -

“Having regard to the nature of the transaction, we are of the opinion that it would be appropriate to state that in cases where the instrumentality of the state enters the contractual field, it should be governed by the incidence of the contract. It is true that it may not be necessary to give reasons but, in our opinion, in the field of this nature fairness must be there to the parties concerned, and having regard to the large number or the long period and the nature of the dealings between the parties, the appellant should have been taken into confidence. Equality and fairness at least demands this much from an instrumentality of the State dealing with a right of the State not to treat the contract as subsisting. We must, however, evolve such process which will work.” For the reasons stated supra, we hold that the respondent- Corporation, being an instrumentality of the State has acted unfairly in the present case in cancelling the selection of the appellant for the retail outlet dealership in question and not issuing the letter of intent to her. The appellant has competed for the appointment and was selected fairly after satisfying the requirements. Therefore, we direct the respondents to restore the appointment to the appellant within six weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. The appeal is accordingly allowed on the above terms with no order as to costs.