1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.4292/2013 Prem Chand Dhanoria V/s.
Union of India & ORS.Date of Order ::: 13.10.2014 PRESENT HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE P.K.LOHRA Mr.Abhishek Pareek, for the petitioner.
Mr.Vipul Dharnia for Mr.Ravi Bhansali for respondent No.1.
Mr.Dinesh Mehta for respondent Nos.2 & 3, Mr.M.R.Singhvi, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Mohit Singhvi for respondent No.6.
Petitioner, an unsuccessful applicant for allotment of retail outlet dealership of respondent Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd (for, 'short HPCL') having location at six kilometers from Motipura Chowki Railway Crossing towards Chabbra, Udaipur, has laid this writ petition praying therein under mentioned reliefs :- It is, therefore, humbly and respectfully prayed that this writ petition of the petitioner may kindly be allowed :- A/ By an appropriate writ order or direction, the Result dated 20.01.2011 (Annexure-4) pertaining to private respondent Chetan Maheshwari and private 2 respondent Ram Chand Dhanoria for the location within 6 KM from Motipura Chowki Railway Crossing towards Chabbra may kindly be quashed and set aside.
B/ By an appropriate writ, order or direction, for the LOI Dated 27.02.2012 (Annexure-30) and reply Dated 10.02.2012 (Annexure-32) may kindly be quashed and set aside.
C/ By an appropriate writ, order or direction, the respondents may kindly be directed to award the dealership to the petitioner after declaring fiRs.for the location 6KM from Motipura Chowki Railway Crossing towards Chabbra in the pursuance of the advertisement dated 29.08.2010 (Annexure-1).D/ By an appropriate writ, order or direction, the respondents may kindly be directed to conduct fresh inspection of the land of the private respondent Chetan Maheshwari situated in KhaSr.No.753/3 and also inspect the KhaSr.No.753/1 and 753 and while inspection the objection of the petitioner may kindly be dealt in accordance with law.
E/ Any other appropriate writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be passed in favpur of the petitioner.
F/ Writ petition filed by the petitioner may kindly be allowed with costs.
The facts necessary and germane to the matter are that respondent, HPCL, issued an advertisement dated 29th of August, 2010 (Annex.1) inviting applications for dealership at various locations besides the aforesaid location in open category.
In response to the 3 advertisement, petitioner as well as private respondents offered their candidatures.
Interestingly, seventh respondent is sibling of the petitioner.
The eligible candidates were called for interview with requisite documents and result of the interview was declared on 20th of January, 2011, wherein sixth respondent, Chetan Maheshwari, stood fiRs.by obtaining 93.15 marks, seventh respondent with 92.15 marks ranked second and the petitioner stood third with 90.48 marks.
Feeling disgruntled with the selection of sixth respondent, seventh respondent lodged a complaint before HPCL.
Be that as it may, nothing transpired pursuant to the complaint of seventh respondent and that prompted him to file a writ petition against the selection of sixth respondent before Jaipur Bench of this Court, but the said effort of the seventh respondent proved abortive.
Thereafter adjudging the candidature of the sixth respondent suitable and considering his credentials about the land offered by him for establishment of retail outlet, respondent HPCL issued Letter of Intent (LoI) in his favour on 2nd of November, 2012.
From the averments contained in the writ petition it emerges out that the petitioner has raised certain objections about the land offered by respondent, Chetan Maheshwari, from KhaSr.No.753/3 and some part of land 4 from KhaSr.No.753/1.
As per the averments in the petition, he has made illegal encroachment on land, which is part of khaSr.No.753/1.
In this behalf, complaint of the petitioner under Section 136 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act was dismissed by the Sub-Divisional Officer- cum-Additional District Magistrate Chabra, District Baran on 29th March, 2011.
Being aggrieved from that order, petitioner laid an appeal under Section 75 of the Land Revenue Act before Revenue Appellate Authority, Kota and the same was partly allowed by setting aside the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer and the matter was remanded back.
The sixth respondent against the order of the Revenue Appellate Authority preferred second appeal under Section 76 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act before the Board of Revenue Ajmer and the Board of Revenue dismissed the appeal by upholding the order passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority.
After remand, the matter was reconsidered and still matter is inconclusive.
On behalf of respondent No.6 reply to the writ petition is submitted denying allegations contained in the writ petition.
In the reply, it is specifically averred that petitioner and his brother, Ramchandra Dhanoria, who was also one of the unsuccessful applicant for allotment of retail outlet, are hand in gloves and are involved in witch-hunt by 5 indulging in unnecessary litigations against him.
For highlighting conduct of the petitioner, respondents have also placed on record order passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court at Jaipur Bench in S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.4285/2012 – Ramchandra Dhanoria V/s.
Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd., & ORS.decided on 6th April, 2012.
The said writ petition was filed by respondent No.7 who is real brother of the petitioner.
The Co-ordinate Bench, while examining the afflictions of seventh respondent, rejected the petition in following terms :- Even if there is some justification in the submission made by counsel for petitioner but after the report has come on record submitted by the officers of the HPCL referred to supra, what is being contended by the petitioner that there are contradiction in the report which the officers of the HPCL has prepared, these are all disputes questions of fact and cannot be looked into by this Court in its limited scope of judicial review U/Art.
226 of the Constitution.
Consequently, the petition is devoid of merit and is hereby dismissed.
However, the petitioner will be at liberty to avail the remedy which the law permits.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record.
6 Upon perusal of the record, it is amply clear that bona fide of the petitioner in launching this litigation are not free from doubt.
As a matter of fact, when the selection of the sixth respondent was challenged by his brother, Ramchandra Dhanoria, before Jaipur Bench and that effort proved abortive, he has filed this writ petition before this Court by way of laying challenge to the issuance of LoI.
Interestingly, Mr.Ramchandra, in his petition, has not impleaded petitioner as private respondent, whereas petitioner has impleaded him as respondent No.7.
The Co.ordinate Bench at Jaipur on thorough examination of the matter has found that there is nothing wrong with the empanelment of the sixth respondent as suitable candidate for allotment of retial outlet.
After examining the report of inspecting team of HPCL, the Court has recorded a categorical finding as under :- The Investing Team after site verification clearly observed that site under KhaSr.No.753 offered by the fiRs.empanelled candidate has frontage of 79.24 meters and depth of the plot from the centerline of the road is 71.7 meteRs.Thus the land offered by the fiRs.empanelled candidate is as per the requirement of the HPCL.
Counsel submits that what was transpired by the committee regarding inspection report in para-5 is in complete contradiction of the report submitted by the Patwari who is custodian of the revenue records and what is being referred 7 to by the Investigating Team of the respondent company is factually incorrect & requires interference by this Court.
The fact that dispute about the land offered by the sixth respondent is still sub-judice, it is not desirable for this Court to make any comment in this regard and appropriate action, in this behalf, is a sole prerogative and repository of HPCL.
Moreover, this Court is not obliged to examine that aspect of the matter in this petition, which is a proceeding essentially aimed against the selection of sixth respondent for retail outlet and issuance of LoI in his favour.
After considering the averments contained in the writ petition and the order passed by the Co-ordinate Bench at Jaipur pertaining to the same selection on a writ petition filed by the sibling of the petitioner, Ramchandra Dhanoria, in my considered opinion, no interference with the selection of the sixth respondent for allotment of retail outlet and issuance LoI in his favour is warranted.
Consequently the present writ petition fails and same is, hereby, dismissed.
(P.K.LOHRA).J.
a.asopa/-