Hon'ble Het Singh Yadav,J.
Heard Shri A.K. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Prakash Padia, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 2 to 4.
The present Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, inter-alia, praying for issuance of writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the result declared by Selection Committee dated 18.04.2012 (Annexure 4 to the Writ Petition) and the Order dated 17th May, 2012 passed by respondent no. 3 (Deputy General Manager, Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.) (Annexure 8 to the Writ Petition).
It appears that an advertisement dated 12th October, 2011 was issued by Indian Oil Corporation Limited inviting applications for allotment of Kisan Sewa Kendra Dealership at Village Haluwa, Post Maidhi, Pargana Majhwar, District Chandauli . The said advertisement was for Open Category (Women). Pursuant to the said advertisement, the petitioner (Madhu Singh) and one Smt. Ruchi Singh submitted their applications for allotment of Kisan Sewa Kendra Dealership at the aforesaid location. Interview was held. Thereafter, the result was declared on 18th April, 2012, copy whereof has been filed as Annexure 4 to the Writ Petition. As per the said result, Smt. Ruchi Singh was found to be ineligible. As regards the petitioner (Madhu Singh), she obtained total 43.24% marks and, therefore, she was found to be not qualified as minimum marks to be obtained under the Open Category (Women) was 50%, as per sub-clause (a) of Clause 17 of the Brochure for Selection of Petrol/Diesel Rural Retail Outlet (Kisan Sewa Kendra) Dealers issued by Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "the Brochure"). Details of the marks obtained by the petitioner (Madhu Singh) shows that under the category "capability to provide infrastructure and facility", she was awarded "zero" marks.
The petitioner being aggrieved by the award of "zero" marks in the aforesaid category and her consequent non-selection, made a representation dated 02.05.2012 before the Competent Authority, Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. Copy of the representation has been filed as Annexure 6 to the Writ Petition. Along-with the said representation, the petitioner submitted the Affidavits of the co-owners of the land, which was mentioned by the petitioner in her application for allotment of Kisan Sewa Kendra Dealership.
By the Order dated 17th May, 2012, the respondent no. 3 rejected the said representation submitted by the petitioner. Copy of the said order dated 17th May, 2012 has been filed as Annexure 8 to the Writ Petition.
The petitioner has thereafter filed the present Writ Petition seeking the reliefs as mentioned above.
It is submitted by Shri A.K. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, that the co-owners of the land mentioned in the application of the petitioner were present at the time of inspection and they gave their oral consent before the Competent Authority. Consequently, along with the representation dated 02.05.2012, the petitioner submitted the Affidavits of co-owners also. In the circumstances, award of "zero" marks to the petitioner under the category "capability to provide infrastructure and facility" was not justified. The respondent no. 3, it is submitted, committed illegality in rejecting the representation of the petitioner.
Shri Prakash Padia, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 2 to 4, submits that the application was submitted by the petitioner on 11th November, 2011 as is evident from the receipt filed as Annexure 2 to the Writ Petition. The result pursuant to the advertisement was declared on 18th April, 2012. The representation was made by the petitioner on 02.05.2012 along with which the petitioner submitted the Affidavits of co-owners of the land. Shri Padia submits that it is thus evident that the Affidavits of the co-owners of the land were not filed along with the application submitted on 11th November, 2011. Shri Padia refers to sub-clauses (e) and (h) of Clause 10 of the Brochure. Shri Padia, further, refers to Item no. 7 of the Table appearing below sub-clause (e) of Clause 14 of the Brochure, and submits that as per the said Item, the petitioner was required to submit registered agreement with various co-owners of the land mentioned in her application but no such registered agreement having been filed, the petitioner was rightly awarded "zero" marks in the aforesaid category.
We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties.
Clause 10 of the Brochure provides as under:
"10. APPLICATION FORM:
Application form for dealership is a part of the advertisement published in the newspapers. The application format can also be downloaded from our website www.iocl.com or taken from the brochure containing application form purchased from our Divisional Office.
a. The application can be submitted on plain paper in the prescribed format as mentioned above.
b. Application Fee : (non refundable) - Rs. 100/- (Rs. 50/- in respect of SC/ST candidates).
c. In case of partnership, each partner will have to submit separate application forms along with separate application fee as applicable. However, while submitted the filled forms their application forms has to be attached together.
d. Filled application along with relevant enclosures complete in all respects should be submitted so as to reach the office address mentioned in the advertisement for a location before the due date and time.
e. Originals of the Affidavits and self attested copies of the other supporting documents should be submitted along with the completed application form, duly signed.
f. The applicant should affix his/her recent photographs in the space provided for in the application form.
g. No addition/deletion/alteration will be permitted in the application once it is submitted.
h. No additional documents whatsoever will be accepted or considered after the cut off date of the application.
i. Applications received after the cut off date for any reason including postal delay, and those without accompanying valid documents like Affidavits, Certificates etc., application fee or incomplete in any respect will not be considered and no correspondence will be entertained by IOCL in such cases whatsoever.
j. The applications received are scrutinized after the cut off date for receiving the applications as given in the advertisement. In case of applications rejected at the time of scrutiny, the concerned applicant will be advised the reasons for rejection in writing and such applicants will not be called for interviews.
k. If any statement made in the application or in the document enclosed therewith by the candidate at any stage is found to be incorrect or false and/or the applicant conceals any information, which if declared, would have made him/her ineligible for dealership, the application is liable to be rejected without assigning any reasons and in case the applicant has been appointed as a dealer, the dealership is liable to be terminated. In such cases the candidate/dealer shall have no claim whatsoever against IOCL.
l. A person selected for dealership after issuance of letter of appointment will have to execute a dealership agreement with IOCL as per its terms.
m. Copy of Residence certificate as per Appendix 'C' to be enclosed. "
It will be thus noticed that sub-clause (e) of Clause 10, inter-alia, requires that along with the application, Originals of the Affidavits and self-attested copies of the other supporting documents should be submitted. Sub-clause (h) of Clause 10 provides that no additional documents whatsoever will be accepted or considered after the cut-off date of the application.
Clause 14 of the Brochure deals with the "Applicants Offering Suitable Land". The said Clause 14 is reproduced below:
"14. APPLICANTS OFFERING SUITABLE LAND Evaluation of the site offered by the applicants:
(a) Owned Land Since availability of suitable land for setting up of retail outlets at the advertised location is the essence of the project. The Land offered by the applicant either owned or having a firm offer, will be evaluated for marks under the Head "Land and Infrastructure, subject to technical and commercial suitability of land as decided by IOCL. The land and details offered along with the application alone will be considered for this purpose and the applicant will not be given the opportunity to offer any other land subsequently. For this purpose, the land owned by the 'family unit' will also be considered as belonging to the applicant subject to producing the consent on notarized affidavit signed by all concerned member/s of the 'family unit'. The definition of 'family unit' will be as per para 6 above.
(b) "Firm Offer" of Land Applicants also have the option to offer land other than that belonging to self (or by 'Family" member or in Joint ownership with such "Family" members i.e. co-owner/s). In such case the applicant should submit registered agreement with the landowner/s.
NOTE:
However, if an applicant, after selection on the above basis, is unable to provide the land indicated in the application within a period of TWO months from the date of Letter of Intent (LOI), IOCL will have the right to cancel the allotment of dealership made to the applicant. The suitability of the Land will be decided by IOCL. However, there is no commitment from IOCL for taking the offered Land from the applicant.
Documents For Offered Land
(c) The applicant should furnish atleast one of the following document (in support of ownership) which should have been issued/revalidated on or after date of advertisement: (i) Khasra/Khatuni or any equivalent revenue document or Certificate from revenue official confirming the status of ownership of the land. Or (ii) Registered sale deed/Registered lease deed or any other type of ownership transfer deed/document in favour of applicant.
(d) Copy of the lease agreement or allotment letter issued by Government/Semi-Government/Autonomous bodies like DDA, NOIDA, HUDA etc. will be considered for ownership of land offered.
(e) In addition to documents in para (c) to (e) above, following additional documents are also required, as applicable.
S.N.
Situation of Ownership Share of application Land Documents required (In addition to land ownership/Revenue record) Evaluation as
1. Self Full Nil Owned land
2. Exclusively by the "Family" members Nil Notarized affidavit by all owners in favour of applicant Owned land
3. Self exclusively with "Family" members Part Notarized affidavit by all other Co-owners in favour of applicant Owned land
4. Self with Others Share of applicant more than IOCL requirement Registered agreement with demarcation of land (portion of land to be given for dealership by the applicant) Owned land
5. Self with Others Share of applicant more than IOCL requirement Registered agreement without demarcation of land (portion of land to be given for dealership by the applicant) Firm Offer
6. Self with Others Share of applicant less than IOCL requirement Registered agreement Firm Offer
7. Others Nil Registered agreement Firm Offer
8. Where the land falling in Owned land category as described in above category at Sr. No. from 1 to 4 is not sufficient for development of retail outlet and land in category 5 to 7 is also offered to meet IOCL's requirement Nil or Part Document as applicable for category at Sr. No. 1 to 4 and Document as applicable for category at Sr. No. 5 to 7.
Firm Offer.
(g) Land document will be sent to District Magistrate/District Collector for verification of title for ownership of land before considering land for evaluation."
Sub-clause (e) of Clause 14 thus deals with the additional documents required in respect of various Items mentioned in the Table appearing below the said sub-clause.
A perusal of the Table appearing below sub-clause (e) of Clause 14, as quoted above, shows that Item no. 1 of the said Table deals with the cases where the applicant is the sole owner of the land mentioned in the application. Item no. 2 of the said Table deals with the situation where the land mentioned in the application is exclusively owned by the "family" members. Item no. 3 of the said Table deals with the situation where the land is owned by the applicant exclusively with "family" members. Item nos. 4 to 6 of the said Table deal with the situation where the land mentioned in the application is owned by the applicant with Others.
Item no. 7 of the said Table deals with the category "Others", i.e., with the situation where the land mentioned in the application does not fall in any of the categories mentioned in Item nos. 1 to 6.
In the present case, during the course of arguments, Shri A.K. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, has stated that in the application submitted by the petitioner, Plot no. 470 situated in Village Halua, Post Maidhi, Pargana Majhwar, District Chandauli was mentioned as the land for establishing Kisan Sewa Kendra. It is further stated by Shri A.K. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, that the said land is owned by the father of the petitioner and certain other persons, who are not the family members of the petitioner.
As the land mentioned in the application of the petitioner belongs to the father of the petitioner with certain other third persons and the petitioner has no share in the said land, the case of the petitioner would not fall under any of the Item nos. 1 to 6 mentioned in the Table below sub-clause (e) of Clause 14 of the Brochure. Consequently, the case of the petitioner would fall under Item no. 7 of the said Table. The petitioner was, therefore, required to submit registered agreement with the co-owners of the said land mentioned in her application. No such registered agreement was filed by the petitioner along with her application. Therefore, the award of "zero" marks to the petitioner in the category "capability to provide infrastructure and facility" cannot be said to suffer from any illegality or infirmity.
There is one more aspect of the matter. As is evident from the narration of the facts above, the petitioner did not file any affidavit of the co-owners of the land mentioned in her application along with her application. It is only after the result of the selection was declared on 18th April, 2012 that the petitioner along with her representation filed certain Affidavits.
As noted above, sub-clause (e) of Clause 10 of the Brochure requires that the Originals of the Affidavits should be submitted along with the application. Sub-clause (h) of Clause 10 imposes clear prohibition on acceptance or consideration of any additional documents after the cut-off date of the application.
In view of this, the respondent no. 3 was justified in holding in its Order dated 17.05.2012 that the Affidavits submitted by the petitioner along with her application/representation dated 02.05.2012 could not be considered. The said Order dated 17.05.2012, in our view, does not suffer any illegality or infirmity.
In view of the above discussion, the Writ Petition filed by the petitioner lacks merits and the same is liable to be dismissed.
The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed.
However, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs.
Order Date :- 22.8.2012 Shekhar