Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Pachori,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri M.K. Maurya holding brief of Shri Nishant Mehrotra, learned counsel for first and second respondent.
The petitioner is before this Court assailing the validity of the order dated 29.5.2020 passed by Chief Regional Manager, Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. and for a direction to respondent nos.1 and 2 to consider the complaint dated 23.9.2019 with regard to cancellation of retail outlet dealership of Petrol Pump of HPCL given to respondent no.3 on the ground that information given by respondent no.3 was not correct according to the required condition fixed by the HPCL.
It appears from the record that as per the advertisement of respondent no.1 the petitioner as well as respondent no.3 moved an application for the award of Ms/HSD Retail Outlet dealership of Koraon Town Area, Prayagraj. Notice for appointment of regular/rural retail outlet dealership was published and HPCL proposes that for Koraon town Area the minimum dimension of land would be 20 mtr. frontage and 20 mtr. depth i.e. total 400 sq. mtr. The draw of lots was held on 24.6.2019 through electronic system by which the retail outlet dealership was given to respondent no.3. It is alleged that respondent no.3 has wrongly given the details of land in the registered agreement of Rent 100 feet x 100 feet though on spot the front of land is 100 feet but the depth is near about 45 feet, which is less than 20 mtrs. as prescribed by the HPCL. The respondent no.3 by suppressing and concealing the description of the area of the land (frontage and depth) given wrong description of land to respondent HPCL for retail outlet dealership. Aggrieved with the same the petitioner made an application/ complaint to second respondent on 23.9.2019 but the same was not considered on the ground that HPCL is unable to process the complaint as the same has not been received within the stipulated time i.e. within 30 days of declaration of result and admitted the allotment of dealership in favour of respondent no.3 by order dated 29.5.2020.
On the matter being taken up today, learned counsel for the respondents has produced the instructions and on the basis of which it is submitted that the advertisement for the location no.1850 Prayagraj Koraon Town Area was given with required area of 20M x 20M = 400 sq. mtr. The respondent no.3 has submitted land vide plot no.1368, Lorain, Tehsil Koraon, Distt. Prayagraj. The applicant has leased an area of 940 sq. mtr. from Smt. Sushma Devi and Shri Shivam Singh for a period of 19 years 11 months. A letter was written to SDM Koraon on 9.7.2020 requesting a certification of area under share of lessors. In detailed report on title SDM has certified an area of 960 sq. mtr. with the lessors. A map for the same has also been provided. Draw of lots was conducted on 24.6.2019. The petitioner has also applied in the location, however, his candidature is under the category of firm offer (Group 2). As per rules laid down in dealer selection guidelines, the draw of lots was conducted for applicants under Group-1 (Owned land/ Registered lease) first. As such the petitioner was not invited for draw of lots. The land offered by respondent no.3 is on the basis of lease deed and the area has been certified by SDM Koran. No discrepancy in depth of land was observed in field report. The petitioner has filed the present petition aggrieved at the selection of the selected candidate. The information of selected candidate is displayed on dealerchayan website instantly after selection, as such the contention of getting late information of selection is incorrect. The petitioner aggrieved at the selection of respondent no.3 had sent a complaint on 23.9.2019, which was more than 30 days after declaration of results.
Learned counsel for the respondents has also placed reliance on Clause 18 (ii) of Dealer Selection Guidelines, which provides "any complaint received after 30 days from date of draw of lots/ bidding process will not be entertained". As such it is contended that the same was not considered and petitioner has been informed the same. However, the concern of the applicant regarding size of the offered plot has been verified from SDM Koraon and no discrepancy was observed. The dimensions of the plot have been certified as the offered plot has adequate depth.
The Court has proceeded to examine the record in question and find that even though the complaint has not been filed by the petitioner well within time the respondents have proceeded to consider the complaint of the petitioner on merit and sought report from the SDM concerned, who certified that the plot is of required size and as such the complaint of the petitioner was non-suited on merits. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we do not find any infirmity or illegality in the order impugned so as to make interference under Art.226 of the Constitution of India. Consequently, the writ petition stands dismissed.
The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad, self attested by the petitioner alongwith a self attested identity proof of the said person (preferably Aadhar Card) mentioning the mobile number to which the said Aadhar Card is linked.
The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.
Order Date :- 27.1.2021 SP/