Case: ANAPURNA JAISWAL Vs. INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD. AND ORS

2. An advertisement was published on 12.10.2011 by the respondent inviting applications for grant of dealership of petrol pumps. The appellant made her application on 11.11.2011. On the basis of the evaluation done, the appellant was placed in the first position. While so it appears that on the basis of complaint, the matter was looked into and order dated 12.11.2014 came to be issued by which the respondent took the view that the lease dated 08.11.2011 which was the foundation for the offer made by the appellant would commence from the date of approval of the petrol outlet. This meant that the possession over the premises did not amount to a lease and on the date of the execution of the lease deed the lease had not come into force. The lease deed was more like a firm offer than owned proposition. Thereafter, on 12.12.2014 the appellant got a rectification/ clarificatory deed registered. Four representations were made by the appellant. The corporation rejected by order dated 25.02.2015 the request. This led to the Writ Petition, which stood dismissed by the impugned order.

Court's reasoning:
8. The appellant undoubtedly secured 85.93 marks. A part of the 85.93 marks is attributable to 35 marks which she derived on the basis of her being a lessee under lease deed dated 08.11.2011 which we have adverted to.10. However, this is not to be the end of the inquiry. The requirement under the clause is that to earn 35 marks the applicant must have inter alia a long lease (Registered for a minimum period of 19 years and 11 months as on the date of the application). What has weighed with the corporation in deciding to dislodge the appellant from the first position is that the lease dated 08.11.2011 was to become operative only from the date of the approval of the petrol pump. In other words, there was no lease deed in effect as on the date of the application which is admittedly 11.11.2011.11. This provision has been subject matter of discussion by this Court and we need only refer to Jugalkishore Saraf v. M/s. Raw Cotton Co. Ltd., AIR 1955 SC 376 . Therein in his concurring opinion Justice Bhagwati held:The words in present or in future qualify the word conveys and not the word property in the section and it has been held that a transfer of property that is not in existence operates as a contract to be performed in the future which may be specifically enforced as soon as the property comes into existence.As was observed by the Privy Council in 12 Moo Ind App 275 (PC) (E):But how can there be any transfer, actual or constructive, upon a contract under which the vendor sells that of which he has not possession, and to which he may never establish a title? The bill of sale in such a case can only be evidence of a contract to be performed in future, and upon the happening of a contingency, of which the purchaser may claim a specific performance, if he comes into Court shewing that he has himself done all that he was bound to do.It is only by the operation of the equitable principle that as soon as the property comes into existence and is capable of being identified, equity taking as done that which ought to be done fastens upon the property and the contract to assign thus becomes a complete equitable assignment. In the case of a decree to be passed in the future therefore there could be no assignment of the decree unless and until the decree was passed and the agreement to assign fastened on the decree and thus became a complete equitable assignment. The decree not being in existence at the date of the transfer cannot be said to have been transferred by the assignment in writing and the matter resting merely in a contract to be performed in the future which may be specifically enforced as soon as the decree was passed there would be no transfer automatically in favour of the transferee of the decree when passed.It would require a further act on the part of the transferor to completely effectuate the transfer and if he did not do so the only remedy of the transferee would be to sue for specific performance of the contract to transfer.In this case, the lease or the period of the lease is 30 years. The question would immediately arise as to when the lease bears life. The expression certain time is premised on there being a beginning in point of time and the end again with reference to time. Certain time would in other words be a period of time. The answer is given by the lease itself, namely that the period begins with effect from the date of approval of the petrol pump. In other words, here is a lease deed which contemplated the period of the lease commencing at a point of time in the future. What is more it would commence only with effect from the date of approval of the petrol pump. The parties in fact contemplated in clause 7 that in case the petrol pump was not approved then the second party (the appellant herein) must handover the land transferred on rent to the first party.A perusal of clause 5 would reveal that lease period is explained as after the expiry of 30 years and it speaks about the renewal of the lease period. The completion of the lease period which is after the expiry of the 30 years again would have to be reckoned only with effect from the date of approval of the petrol pump. Therefore, it is clear that the lease which the appellant laid store by contemplated the period of the lease commencing not on the date of the lease but at a point of time in the future. In fact, the point of time or the event upon which the period of lease was to begin with itself uncertain. Maybe it is true that it could come into effect upon future events taking shape on the principle that in equity on the future event happening relating to the subject matter of the lease, the lease could have affected the property in the future. But we need not explore the matter on those lines any further as it is clear that the lease did not take effect on the date of the lease namely 8.11.2011. If that be so there was also no lease in place as on the date of the application namely 11.11.2011.In fact, if one applies Section 47 of the Registration Act, to the facts of this case it would not have the effect of preponing the period of the lease as commencing from the date of the execution of the lease. The lease would operate on its terms and the period of the lease would commence only upon approval being granted despite it being registered.16. The result of this discussion is that the appellant cannot be possibly entitled to the benefit of 35 marks which is vouchsafed only for those applicants who inter alia had a long-term lease as on the date of the application.17. There is another aspect we must bear in mind. We are dealing with a case where what is sought is judicial review of the decision to award largesse. A fairly large measure of free play in the joints is vouchsafed to a public authority when it comes to understanding the terms under which the offer is made. We cannot be oblivious to this aspect as well. The fact that in the rectification deed also which was executed much after the date of the advertisement and application an attempt is made to correct the original lease deed and to indicate that it was as a result of an error that clause 1 which we have referred to came to be inserted also would fortify us in our reasoning which we have employed in finding that appellant is not entitled to 35 marks.