LPA No.240 of 2014 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH LPA No.240 of 2014 (O & M) Date of Decision:12.02.2014 Sarika Vats ....petitioner Versus Indian Oil Corporation Limited and others .....respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ARUN PALLI1Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement?.
2.
To be referred to the Reporters or not?.
3.
Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?.
Present: Mr.Rajiv Kataria, Advocate for the appellant *** ARUN PALLI, JUDGE: A brief narration of facts would be essential and expedient.
Indian Oil Corporation-respondent No.1, issued an advertisement, dated 09.11.2007, for allotment of LPG distributorship at village Badshahpur, District Gurgaon, in Women (Open) category.
Respondent No.3 namely Meenakashi Yadav (petitioner in CWP No.13911 of 2012) applied for allotment of said distributorship.
She was interviewed on 26.08.2009 and was placed at No.1 in the merit list drawn by the Selection Committee.
The field investigation of both the premises of respondent No.3, taken on lease, for the purpose of setting up of a showroom and a godown for storage of LPG cylinders was conducted.
Being satisfied, a Letter of Intent dated 26.02.2010 was issued to respondent No.3.
Having received the Letter of Intent and being asked to ensure the due and timely compliance of the terMs.on which the letter of Verma Neenu 2014.02.26 10:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh LPA No.240 of 2014 2 intent was issued, respondent No.3 commenced construction of the godown as well as the showroom.
The necessary approvals from the Joint Chief Controller of Explosives, Petroleum and Explosives Safety Department, were duly obtained.
The Corporation also approved the name of the distributorship i.e.“M/s Badshahpur Indane”.VAT Registration Certificate and Certificate of Registration under Central Sales Tax were also obtained.
Respondent No.3 purchased comprehensive LPG Gas Traders combined policy and the phone connections from the National Insurance Company, BSNL and Tata Indicom, respectively.
The construction of the godown as well as the showroom was completed and it lay ready for commencement of business.
The photographs of the completed showroom/godown were annexed as Annexure P-9 with the writ petition.
However, the Corporation vide letter dated 15.04.2010, conveyed to respondent No.3, that it was holding the Letter of Intent in abeyance because of a VIP Reference/complaint dated 05.01.2010.
A perusal of the said complaint/VIP Reference, which is Annexure P-11 with the writ petition, reveals that the said letter was sent by one Member of Parliament (Lok Sabha) namely Vishwa Mohan Kumar, who had won the parliamentary elections from the State of Bihar.
This seem to have turned the whole situation.
Acting on the said complaint/VIP Reference, the Chief Area Manager of the Corporation constituted a Field Investigating Committee and resultantly further investigations were carried out at the premises of respondent No.3.
She was again required to submit certain information, though, that had already been submitted along with her application.
Not just that, respondent No.3 was directed to appear before the Chief Vigilance Officer of the Indian Oil Corporation on 09.09.2010 where she was subjected to series of questions in relation to her Verma Neenu 2014.02.26 10:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh LPA No.240 of 2014 3 educational and professional experience, etc.Finally, on 29.06.2012, a show cause notice was issued to respondent No.3, proposing to cancel the Letter of Intent dated 26.02.2010, issued in her favour.
This is how, respondent No.3, was led to approach this Court, vide Civil Writ Petition No.13911 of 2012 titled as “Meenakshi Yadav versus Indian Oil Corporation LTD.and another”.She prayed for a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the show cause notice dated 29.06.2012 for cancellation of the Letter of Intent.
She also sought a direction to the respondents to withdraw the letter dated 15.04.2010, vide which the Letter of Intent was ordered to be kept in abeyance.
Consequently, she prayed for a writ in the nature of mandamus, for a direction to the Corporation to issue a formal letter of appointment for running LPG distributorship.
Ex facie, learned Single Judge examined the matter at length.
And formulated three issues arising for consideration of the Court, which reads as thus: (i)Whether the respondents have violated the provisions of clause 12.1, while entertaining the complaint after the stipulated period?.
(ii)Whether present one was a case of concealment or misrepresentation on behalf of the petitioner, particularly when the genuineness of documents of the petitioner was not disputed?.
(iii)Whether in the absence of any allegation of malafide or connivance against any of the three members of the Selection Committee or the petitioner, action of the respondents while issuing letter dated 15.04.2010 (Anneuxre P-10) Verma Neenu and show cause notice dated 29.06.2010 2014.02.26 10:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh LPA No.240 of 2014 4 (Annexure P-16) was unreasonable and arbitrary being violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
Suffice, it would be, to refer to the conclusions arrived at by the learned Single Judge to answer the aforesaid questions.
The same read as follows: ........Having said that, this court feels no hesitation to conclude that while entertaining a time barred complaint, the respondents have acted without jurisdiction and glaringly violated their own guidelines, because of which the impugned action has been found to be wholly unreasonable and unjust, which cannot be sustained.
The fiRs.question, therefore, is answered in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents........All the documents of the petitioner were compared with the originals.
Genuineness of each and every document was duly established.
No objection of any kind, whatsoever, was raised by any of the respondent authorities.
In this view of the matter, it is unhesitatingly held that the present one was not a case of concealment or misrepresentation on the part of the petitioner.
There was no scope, whatsoever, to level any kind of allegation against the petitioner at any point of time during the entire selection process.
In fact, the petitioner was found as a genuine, bona fide and eligible candidate fulfilling all the eligibility conditions, including the evaluation criteria.
Thus, the 2nd question posed above is decided against Verma Neenu 2014.02.26 10:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh LPA No.240 of 2014 5 the respondents and in favour of the petitioner.
Coming to the 3rd question posed herein above, it has been found to be a matter of record that the genuineness of the educational qualifications, experience certificates and other particulars of the petitioner had never been in doubt.
Even during the couRs.of hearing, learned counsel for the respondents could not raise any doubt on the genuineness of the documents of the petitioner.
Once it is so, there was no room for doubt about the genuineness of the candidature of the petitioner and the documents supplied by her along with her application.
Thus, in the absence of any doubt about the genuineness of the documents qua educational qualification and experience of the petitioner, action taken by the respondents was not only unjust, unreasonable and arbitrary, but the same was without jurisdiction, as well, therefore cannot be sustained.
An ancillary question i.e.what could be the scope of a VIP Reference/complaint and that too, much after a lapse of outer time limit for entertaining any such complaint.
The answer recorded to the said question reads as thus: .....During the couRs.of hearing, when a pointed question was put to learned counsel for the respondents in this regard, as to how a VIP Reference will find place in the selection process, he had no answer.
Similarly, learned counsel for the respondents could not furnish any Verma Neenu 2014.02.26 10:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh LPA No.240 of 2014 6 plausible explanation as to how a Member of Parliament from Supaul (Bihar) would have any justifiable reason to make such a reference as contained in Annexure P-11 dated 05.11.2011, about the selection process for a location in the State of Haryana.
There seems to be some other reason and one need not to go too far to find out the same.
However, this court restrains from commenting any further on this issue.
As a result, the writ petition was allowed with costs quantified at ` 30,000/-.
We are reminded, at this juncture, to point out that the present appeal is not preferred by Indian Oil Corporation, the only contesting respondent before the learned Single Judge.
The Corporation has not chosen to file any appeal.
Thus, the order, under challenge, has attained finality against the Corporation.
The appellant was not a party to the proceedings before the learned Single Judge.
In fact, she was also one of the applicants for allotment of the same distributorship and was shortlisted at No.3 in the merit list.
The grievance, being expressed, by the appellant is that respondent No.3 i.e.Meenakshi Yadav (petitioner in CWP No.13911 of 2012) had not intentionally made the appellant a party in the said petition.
This was, in spite of the fact, that already a writ petition on the same issue, filed by the appellant bearing CWP No.11310 of 2012 titled as “Sarika Vats versus Indian Oil Corporation Limited and others”., was already pending before this Court, wherein respondent No.3 was also a party and was arrayed as respondent No.5.
Respondent No.3 intentionally concealed this fact in the present writ petition and did not even apprise the Single Verma Neenu 2014.02.26 10:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh LPA No.240 of 2014 7 Judge of the pendency of her petition.
Resultantly, having now come to know of the order, being assailed in the present proceedings, she was in appeal, being an effected party.
Her rights and interests, stand severely affected, purely on account of her absence, imputable to respondent No.3 in the proceedings before the learned Single Judge.
Secondly, the spot inspection report, which was placed on record as Annexure P-6 in CWP No.11310 of 2012, by the appellant, was concealed by respondent No.3 in the present writ petition.
In the face of the multiple illegalities and infirmities, pointed out therein, the candidature of respondent No.3, ought to have been rejected and under no conceivable situation, the Corporation could still issue the Letter of Intent to her.
We had heard learned counsel for the appellant.
Since we were not inclined to interfere in the matter, the learned counsel prayed for a pass over, to seek instructions, to withdraw the appeal, lest our order affects her rights and interests in the writ petition filed and being pursued by her.
However, subsequently, a decision on merits was prayed for and thus we proceed to order.
No doubt, the appellant was not arrayed as a party to the petition filed by respondent No.3.
And in our opinion rightly so.
She was not a compulsory joinder in context of the precise issue raised in the said petition.
Once, respondent No.3 was shortlisted and placed at No.1 in the order of merit and Letter of Intent having been issued as back as on 26.02.2010, there was no reason or occasion for respondent No.3 to still array the applicant as party to her petition.
Said petition was filed in July 2012, being aggrieved against a show cause notice dated 29.06.2012 for cancellation of Letter of Intent.
Her grievance was primarily and principally against the Corporation, as is apparent from the analysis of facts sketched Verma Neenu 2014.02.26 10:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh LPA No.240 of 2014 8 out above.
The appellant, who was once the applicant and was placed at No.3 in the merit list, was not in the picture and rightly so.
Astonishingly, it was in May 2012, (after more than two years of the issuance of Letter of Intent).the appellant chose to file a petition before this Court i.e.CWP No.11310 of 2012, assailing selection of respondent No.3, which dates back to August 2009.
Still further, when respondent No.3 filed CWP No.13911 of 2012, she had not yet been served in the petition filed by the appellant.
So, it cannot be said, she intentionally did not array the appellant as party in the said proceedings.
Be that as it may, primarily and principally, the grievance of the appellant, before us, is that respondent No.3 consciously and calculatedly mis-stated and concealed material facts in her petition.
The appellant inculpates respondent No.3 for her absence, as a result, she was deprived of setting forth the true and correct position before the learned Single Judge and pursue her interests.
In our view, the grievance being made, is wholly misconceived and seriously lacks bona fides, as is being demonstrated here-in-after.
Incidentally, we have the copy of the written statement filed by respondent No.3 to the petition filed by the appellant, averments made in para No.17 thereof, unravels the verity and the same reads as thus: That contents of para No.17 of the petition are wrong and hence denied.
It is further submitted that the petitioner is an influential person as on the basis of the representation issued by the petitioner, a Member of Parliament from Bihar had sent a letter to the Petroleum Minister seeking cancellation of the distributorship of LPG issued in favour of the answering respondent, on the basis of Verma Neenu 2014.02.26 10:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh LPA No.240 of 2014 9 which a show cause notice has been issued.
The said show cause notice is under challenge before this Hon'ble Court in Civil Writ Petition No.13911 of 2012 titled as Minakshi Yadav versus I.O.C.and another.
We may deem it appropriate to point out further, in the application for condonation of delay in filing the present appeal, it is stated that respondent No.3 did not file the written statement on certain dates and it was only when the matter was listed on 29.01.2014, for arguments, copy of the written statement could be obtained a day earlier i.e.28.01.2014.
And this is how from the contents of the said written statement, the appellant acquired knowledge of the present writ petition and subsequently, the order passed by the learned Single Judge.
Since the date of filing of the written statement by respondent No.3, to the petition filed by the appellant, was not discernible, we requisitioned the records of the said petition i.e.CWP No.11310 of 2012.
We have examined the record, in our view, this brings the whole issue to an end.
We find that the written statement by respondent No.3 in the said case was filed in the Registry on 31.07.2013, along with an application, on the letterhead of the counsel for respondent No.3.
So much so, copy thereof, was duly supplied and received by the counsel for the appellant on 31.07.2013, itself.
That being the case, the grievance being made out before us is misplaced, misconceived, besides being wholly unwarranted.
However, one wondeRs.appellant being fully conscious and alive to the pendency of the petition filed by respondent No.3, as demonstrated above, why did not she still choose to be a party by making an appropriate application?.
The only answer, which emanates from the records, could be, had such an application been made, the appellant, would have Verma Neenu 2014.02.26 10:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh LPA No.240 of 2014 10 provided the crucial missing link between a VIP Reference/complaint and the Corporation.
It was for this reason and none else, the appellant chose to sit by the Bay and watch the proceedings.
Now when, the petition stands allowed, she is in appeal before us.
We may now advert to the Field Investigation Report, which was said to be completely fatal to the candidature of respondent No.3.
Thus, we deem it expedient to reproduce the same : The information given in the application is found to be variance on the following items (Strike off if not applicable) 1.
The lease deed submitted by the applicant for shop and land for LPG Godown do not match with the lease deed submitted with application form which is dated 08.12.07 and unregistered while the lease deed is actually registered on 10.12.07.
The candidate Ms.Meenakshi has also mentioned the date of lease as 10.12.07 in her application form but the lease deed attached with the application form is dated 8.12.07 and is unregistered.
The partition of land is essential as it will help us ascertain whether the High Tension Transmission Line passes through the land for LPG Godown or not.
2.
The Govt.
has issued an acquisition notice for the land on which is situated.
3.
The valuation report is not form a Govt.approved valuer but a diploma engineer (civil) and a practising architect.
The aforesaid report, at best, shows that the lease deed submitted by respondent No.3 along with an application form was dated Verma Neenu 2014.02.26 10:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh LPA No.240 of 2014 11 08.12.2007 and was an unregistered document and whereas, in the application form, respondent No.3, had mentioned the date of lease as 10.12.2007.
And on the contrary, the lease deed submitted by respondent No.3 to the Field Investigation Committee was a registered document dated 10.12.2007.
This being so, it is being pre-pounded, that the information in the application form submitted by respondent No.3 was stated to be at variance with the registered lease deed dated 10.12.2007, submitted to Field Investigation Committee.
We are at loss to understand as to how the aforesaid report, could be construed and read against respondent No.3.
The only possible conclusion, which emerges therefrom is simple.
Admittedly, there exists a registered deed dated 10.12.2007.
Admittedly, in her application form, the date of lease was mentioned as 10.12.2007.
However, accidentally respondent No.3 appended with the application form an unregistered lease deed dated 08.12.2007.
What it simply shows is that respondent No.3, in place of registered lease deed dated 10.12.2007 annexed an unregistered lease deed dated 08.12.2007 with her application form.
This is not the case being set out by the appellant that the property details mentioned in the application form by respondent No.3 were false, incorrect or even at variance with the ones mentioned in the registered lease deed.
The other aspect, which has been laid emphasis upon, by learned counsel for the appellant is that the partition of the land, as indicated in the report, was essential.
Further the lease deed was executed by only one co-sharer and the consent of other co-sharer was not obtained.
At this stage, we are reminded that post VIP Reference/complaint, respondent No.3 was asked to appear before the Chief Vigilance Officer of the Corporation and was subjected a series of questions.
A few of the questions posed and answers made reads as thus: Verma Neenu 2014.02.26 10:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh LPA No.240 of 2014 12 Q9.
You did not submit partition deed to FIR committee during fiRs.visit.
Is it correct ?.
Do you want to tell something ?.
A9.
Yes, it is correct because the people who have partition deed was not available at the time of FIR committee visit.
After he came, we submit the same to the concern office.
Q10.
In lease deed submitted alongwith application form only one co owner has made the document.
Where is the consent of co owner at the time ?.
A10.
Yes, Smt.
Savita Yadav had made the document of lease deed because we had taken the portion of Smt.
Savita Yadav only.
The share of both the co owners was partitioned earlier to lease deed i.e.in 30.10.2007 by the both co owners i.e.Smt.
Savita Yadav and Smt.
Santosh Yadav.
Therefore consent of Smt.Santosh Yadav was not required.
The Field Investigation Report, insofar as it conveys that partition of the land is essential, as it would help to ascertain whether the High Tension Transmission Lines passes through the land for LPG godown or not?.
We find the answer of the said question conclusively lies in para No.12 of the response filed by the Corporation to the petition preferred by the appellant and the same reads as thus: Para 11 is wrong and is denied.
It is submitted that as per report submitted by FIR committee no HT line was passing through the land claimed and offered by the respondent No.5.
Based on partition deed dated 30.10.2007 & NOC from Smt.Santosh Yadav clarifies that land was in possession of each party.
Moreover, Tehsildar, Sohna report dated 22.02.2010 certified that candidate was lessee and in possession of land.
Verma Neenu 2014.02.26 10:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh LPA No.240 of 2014 13 The matter can be viewed from another perspective.
The Letter of Intent was issued by the competent authority to the answering respondent as back as on 26.02.2010.
It implies, the same was preceded by a thorough analysis and consideration of the claim as well as the candidature of respondent No.3.
But for a VIP Reference/complaint, the appointment letter for running of LPG distributorship, exceptions apart, would have been issued to respondent No.3.
The only ground, on which the matter, though unwarrantedly was sought to be reviewed and a show cause notice was issued to respondent No.3, was in relation to certain discrepancies, found in the documents submitted by her, viz-a-viz her educational qualification and experience.
The aspect which the learned Single Judge examined and set at rest as pointed out earlier.
However, what is sought to be agitated before us, was not the basis on which the Corporation sought to issue show cause notice for cancellation of Letter of Intent.
In view of the foregoing conclusions, we find no reason, least plausible to interfere with the decision rendered by the learned Single Judge and thus the appeal, being bereft of merits, is dismissed.
We may, however, make it clear that the conclusions arrived at by us in the present appeal, are confined and restricted to the decision of the present case, as we are mindful of the petition filed by the appellant (i.e.CWP No.11310 of 2012) which, of course, would be considered and decided independently of the present decision, on merits.
CM No.594 of 2014 Prayer in this application is for condonation of delay of 99 days in filing the appeal.
We have heard the appeal on merits and dismissed the same, vide detailed order of even date.
In view of the reasons recorded in Verma Neenu 2014.02.26 10:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh LPA No.240 of 2014 14 the said order, most particularly, in reference to the instant application, we hardly find any cause, least sufficient to condone the delay in filing the appeal.
The application being wholly misconceived and since it seriously lacks bona fides, the same is accordingly dismissed.
(SANJAY KISHAN KAUL) CHIEF JUSTICE1202.2014 neenu (ARUN PALLI) JUDGE Verma Neenu 2014.02.26 10:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh