::1:: APHC010367442024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3329] THURSDAY ,THE SIXTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 18570/2024 Between: Karra Vijaya Lakshmi ...PETITIONER AND Indian Oil Corporation Ltd and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. G JHANSI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. ASHOK RAM V 2. VENKATA DURGA RAO ANANTHA 3. K V ADITYA CHOWDARY ::2:: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA W.P.No.18570 of 2024 The Court made the following ORDER: The instant Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by the Petitioner for the following relief: “….to pass an order, direction, writ more particularly one in the nature of the Writ of Mandamus, declaring the decision / order of the 3rd Respondent informing that petitioner is ineligible for the appointment of Regular and Rural Retail Outlet (Petrol Pump) Dealerships, pertaining to Serial Mo.876, Pedapulipaka Village in Penamaluru Mandal, especially those not aligned with NH/SH routes towards Vijayawada – Tadigadapa, as per Notification for Appointment of Regular / Rural Retail Outlet Dealership, as against to the procedure stipulated in the brochure dated 10.06.2023 and simultaneously showing 7th Respondent as selected on the Respondent Corporations website, as illegal, arbitrary, irrational, unlawful and further violative of principles of natural justice and Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently stay all further proceedings pursuant to the order/decision of the 3rd Respondent dated 31.07.2024 and pass…” 2. The Petitioner’s case is that the 5th Respondent had issued public notice for the appointment of Regular and Rural Retail Outlet (Petrol Pump) Dealerships across various locations in Andhra Pradesh. In response to the said notification, the Petitioner being a person hails from SC category had developed a keen interest in applying for the appointment of Regular/Rural Retail Outlet (Petrol Pump) Dealership pertaining to Serial No.876 of Notification for Appointment of Regular / ::3:: Rural Retail Outlet Dealership in Pedapulipaka Village in Penamaluru Mandal which is reserved for SC category. 3. After completion of scrutiny of the applications, the Petitioner herein was found as a fit and eligible candidate for the subject dealership at Pedapulipaka and accordingly he was selected provisinally. Then the Petitioner was instructed through e-mail dated 19.10.2023 by the 3rd Respondent herein requesting for submission of suitable land deeds as per terms of notice since the application of the petitioner comes under group-3 category and the Petitioner has to submit all the relevant documents relating to either ownership or leasehold rights granted in her favour in the form of Appendix-III. 4. After compliance with the same on 22.02.2024 the Petitioner was informed by way of an e-mail communication that the petitioner’s candidature was provisionally selected under SC category subject to compliance of further necessary steps and submission of other required documents relating to proposed land at which the subject retail outlet should be established. 5. It is further case of the Petitioner that the Petitioner had complied with the instructions as suggested by the 3rd Respondent and uploaded the death certificate and family members certificate of Late K. Satyanarayana (who is original owner of the subject land) and other ::4:: documents on 09.05.2024 and also handed over to Mr. Rajiv, the Sales Field Officer of the 1st Respondent. 6. Further, the other required documents as required by the Respondent were uploaded on 15.05.2024 and again the Field Officer informed the Petitioner to meet their Advocate and submit all the relevant documents especially an affidavit in Annexure-III. 7. She submits that once the Petitioner submitted the documents as instructed on or before 19.04.2024 which is within the period of limitation as per the 3rd Respondent proceedings, the time fixed for such submission is 10.05.2024 but documents were uploaded on 15.05.2024. She further submits that the sworn affidavit duly signed by all the legal heirs of K. Satyanarayana submitted to the 3rd respondent and also uploaded the same on 15.05.2024. She also asserts that even though the Petitioner complied with all the terms and conditions as per public tender notice and after provisional selection of the Petitioner, denying the candidature or application of the Petitioner is contrary to the guidelines as well as selection procedure as envisaged under the terms of tender notice. 8. Further, the selection of the 7th Respondent was intimated in the website on 26.05.2024 despite the Petitioner has complied with submission of the required documents is illegal and arbitrary. After ::5:: issuance of the order of rejection of the candidature of the Petitioner on 22.06.2024, the Petitioner herein submitted a representation to the 3rd respondent on 27.06.2024. Even after submission of the representation, the Respondents neither re-considered the candidature of the Petitioner nor disposed of the representation. Thus the Petitioner preferred W.P.No.14074/2024 wherein this Hon’ble Court was pleased to pass the following order: “8. Having regard to the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the Respondents and on perusal of the material available on record, the writ petition is disposed of, directing Respondent Nos.3 to 6 to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 27.06.2024 after affording reasonable opportunity to the petitioner and pass appropriate orders within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Thereafter, the respondents shall communicate the decision taken by them to the Petitioner. In the meanwhile, the respondents are specifically directed not to proceed further till finalization of the representation of the Petitioner.” 9. She would contends that all the required documents were already submitted physically on 09.05.2024 at local Sales Office but the same were uploaded as per the terms on 31.05.2024. Therefore, the rejection of the claim of the petitioner on the ground of documents has submitted physically were not uploaded on or before 10.05.2024 is illegal, highhanded action. Hence on the sole ground the candidature of the Petitioner was rendered as ineligible is illegal, arbitrary and liable to be set aside. To substantiate her contention, she relied upon the judgment ::6:: of this Hon’ble Court in Gosala Raju v. The Indian Oil Corporation Limited (W.P.No.8450 of 2019) 10. The 3rd Respondent filed counter stating that in view of principle laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in M/s N.G. Projects Limited vs. M/s Vinod Kumar Jain1, the instant Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed at the threshold. 11. That the Respondent addressed a letter through e-mail dated 22.02.2024 informing about the submission of required land documents by way of uploading the same by 03.03.2024. Further, since the documents uploaded are not clarified the ownership of the lessor since the original owner already died and all the legal heirs of the original owner are not parties to the lease deed/document, again the petitioner was requested vide another e-mail communication dated 19.04.2024 to upload all the rectified and corrected documents including Khasra/Khatouni or any equivalent revenue document on or before 10.05.2024. In fact, the Petitioner not submitted the documents as requested on or before 10.05.2024 but submitted after three weeks i.e., on 31.05.2024 which is after selection of the 7th Respondent herein. As per Clause 4(vi)(i) of Selection Guidelines clearly stipulates that the Annexure-III Affidavit has to be obtained from all the Family Members on 1 2022 (6) SCC 127 ::7:: or before date of publication in case of death of original owner. Therefore, the petitioner miserably failed in submitting required documents within the time and also not in accordance with Annexure-III affidavit. Therefore, the Respondents rightly informed that the candidature of the Petitioner is ineligible and not suitable and accordingly the representation dated 22.06.2024 also considered and rejected after providing personal hearing to the petitioner on 17.07.2024 vide speaking orders dated 31.07.2024. 12. As per Clause-4(e) of tender notice, all the applications and other required documents should be submitted through online mode only in the web portal of the Respondent. Therefore, the claim of the petitioner that she submitted required documents on 09.05.2024 one day before i.e., on 10.05.2024 physically at the local office of the Respondent-Corporation is contrary to the tender conditions. 13. It is further claimed by the respondents that as per the Clause-23 of the Selection Guidelines which clearly specified that failure to submit required documents is non-rectifiable defect which prohibits to alter/ addition / deletion in the application form except affixing photograph and signature on the form. The non submission of affidavit in prescribed format i.e., Appendix III, is a non-rectifiable deficiency, which is a ::8:: mandatory in nature. Therefore, non compliance of the same makes ineligible of the candidature of the petitioner. 14. Learned counsel for Respondent Corporation submits that in the instant case after scrutiny of the application of the Petitioner as well as 7th Respondent after drawal of lots, the Petitioner was provisionally selected and informed about the selection and instructed to submit the required documents for further process of the selection. He further submits that in that process since the application of the Petitioner under Group-3, i.e., the petitioner neither owned the property on her own nor got executed any lease deed in respect of suitable mandated property as per the terms of the notification by the date of application, the petitioner was provided ample opportunity for submission of the required documents in respect of the suitable land for establishing retail outlet as per the terms of the notification. 15. Admittedly, the subject property proposed by the petitioner is stands in the name of a person, who died intestate leaving his legal heirs. By mere getting any deed from his wife leaving other legal heirs cannot be valid document. Accordingly, the Petitioner was once again requested for submission of documents in respect of land by the Respondents on 22.02.2024 to submit the same on or before 03.03.2024. But the petitioner did not submit all the documents as intimated in the ::9:: communication through e-mail dated 22.02.2024. Again the petitioner was given another e-mail communication dated 19.04.2024 to upload all the corrected documents on or before 10.05.2024. But for one reason or the other the petitioner miserably failed to submit the documents on or before 10.05.2024. Finally after lapse of three weeks the petitioner alleged that the documents were on 31.05.2024 physically submitted to the Divisional Office of the Respondents. Curiously, the person to whom the documents were submitted not made as party respondent to prove bonafides. At his instructions only the same were submitted physically to him contrary to the terms of the notification. He further submits that petitioner admittedly failed to submit all the documents as required as per Clause-23 of Selection Guidelines. He further pleaded that the judicial review by way of an extraordinary jurisdiction is very limited in matters involving tenders or public contracts. More over, judicial interference is permissible only in cases of arbitrariness or malafide actions were proved. In the present case, the action of the Respondents neither arbitrary nor malafide, it is purely failure on the part of the petitioner, even though an ample opportunities were provided to the petitioner for rectifying / correcting the lacunas in submission of required documents. As such, the Writ Court should refrain itself from interfering in tenders or ::10:: in matters of public contracts as held by Hon’ble Apex Court in M/s N.G. Projects Limited vs M/S Vinod Kumar Jain2. 16. In view of non-compliance of all the tender conditions by the Petitioner and selection of 7th Respondent, who complied with all the terms of the conditions, the speaking orders of Respondent dated 29.11.2024 and the entire selection process was already completed by the Respondents do not requires any interference by this Hon’ble Court. 17. Heard Ms. G. Jhansi, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Sri Ashok Ram. V, learned Standing Counsel for Respondent Corporation and Sri K.V. Aditya Chowdary, learned counsel for Respondent No.7 and perused the material placed on record. 18. While perusing the material placed on record, it appears that the Petitioner was provisionally selected for establishment of Retail Outlet (RO) in respect of Serial No.876 of the 5th respondent public notice at Pedapulipaka Village in Penamaluru Mandal. The Petitioner’s provisional selection was considered under Group-3 category i.e., the applicants who have not offered any land as required in their application, that applications under group-3 will be processed or advised to offer land only if an eligible applicant is found and if no applicant is selected under Group 1 or Group 2. But due to drawl of lots even though the 7th Respondent 2 2022 (6) SCC 127 ::11:: submitted deed of lease along with his application, the Petitioner seems to be selected provisionally. The fact remains that after such selection the petitioner was advised finally on 19.10.2023 for submission of his proposal for providing suitable land in respect of location at Serial No.876. On perusal of land documents submitted by her again the Petitioner was informed on 22.02.2024 to upload 8 documents as narrated therein on or before 03.03.2024. But the petitioner did not comply with the above request within the time as requested, in fact, the Respondent Corporation issued another communication on 19.04.2024 and requested the petitioner to upload the documents on or before 10.05.2024 in the web portal through online mode. Admittedly, having received the communications the petitioner miserably failed in submitting all the documents as suggested on or before 10.05.2024. Therefore, the Respondents proceeded further and it seems that the 7th Respondent had been selected, who satisfied the tender conditions apart from selection guidelines. Learned Standing Counsel contended that the Clause 4(e) of the selection guidelines are mandates that the provisionally selected candidate should upload the property documents i.e., title deeds, Khasra/Khatouni or any certificate issued by the revenue officials confirming the ownership against the subject land as and when advised by the respondent Corporation. Admittedly, in the instant case the respondents again and again requested the petitioner herein for ::12:: submission of required documents relating to the land offered by her for establishment of subject dealership by way of uploading the same to the corporation website. But the petitioner herself admitted that the same were handed over to the local officials of the respondent Corporation at their regional office, which is contrary to the clause-4(e) of the Selection Guidelines. It is further contended that the petitioner herein also contravened Clause 4(vi)(i) as well as Clause-23 of the selection guidelines even though the petitioner was requested for compliance of the same. For better understanding Clause-4(vi)(i) of the Selection Guidelines extracted as under: “4(vi)(i) For Group 2 Applicants, the “firm offer” of land will include land offer from third party based on Agreement to purchase/long term lease (as per terms and conditions of the OMCs). Land offer letter in the form of an Affidavit (Appendix – III) tendered by the third party (landowner) on or before the date of application, should be available with the applicant along with documents mentioned in clause (e and f) above to establish the ownership of land offered for the Dealership which will have to be submitted by the applicant as and when advised by OMCs.” Clause 23 of the Selection Guidelines stipulates as under: “23. LIST OF NON-RECTIFIABLE DEFICIENCIES IN APPLICATIONS. The following deficiencies in the application form for Retail Outlet Dealer Selection are non-rectifiable and such applications will not be considered for further selection process. a) Age of applicant as on the date of application is less than 21 completed years or more than 60 years except for Freedom Fighters applying for locations reserved under Combined Category 2 (CC2). b) Applicant does not belong to the category for which the subject dealership is reserved. c) Applicant does not have the required educational qualification on the date of application except for Freedom Fighters applying for locations reserved under Combined Category 2 (CC2). d) Applicant is not an Indian Citizen. e) Applicant is not a Resident of India as per IT Rule, (if an individual stayed in India for 182 days or more In the previous Financial year, he is treated ::13:: as resident of India as per Income Tax Rules irespective of his ciltizenship. If the stay is less than 182 days he is a non-resident) f) The same land offered in multiple applications for the same location, all such applications will get rejected. g) Group of land as declared by the applicant in the application. h) Applicant is member of "family unit" of IOC/BPC/HPC employees as defined under "Disqualification" clause of Brochure. i) Initial security deposit not submitted within stipulated time. j) Documents not submitted for scrutiny within stipulated time as advised by OMC. k) Rectifiable deficiency not corrected within the specified time (21 days). l) Non production of original documents for verification at the time of FVC. m) Change in Mobile No. & e-mail id n) PAN No. mismatch / Incorrect PAN No./PAN No. does not belong to the applicant. o) Applicant could not produce certificates in support of eligibility criteria p) Changes in Khasra / Khatouni/Gut/Survey No. etc. of offered land. q) Offered land is not in the advertised location/stretch and/or not meeting the Dealer selection guidelines / statutory norms, etc. r) Applications for CC - "A Site" (Non-Corpus fund) dealerships with bid amount lower than the applicable minimum bid amount. s) Affidavit Appendix - III is of a date later than the date of application. No alteration / addition / deletion in the application form will be permitted except affixing of photograph and putting signature on the application form. The rectified or additional documents would be accepted only if they are pertaining to the information provided in the Application form.” On perusal of the both mandatory requirements, the Petitioner miserably failed in compliance of the terms of the tender notice as well as selection guidelines. Therefore, the Petitioner not entitled any relief much less as prayed for the reason that having admitted the failure on her part in submission of the documents within the time prescribed as per the terms of the tender notice. As such, the petitioner neither vested with any legal right nor any infringement of fundamental right or statutory right to enforce the same. 19. On the other hand, the subject matter is purely a matter of tender for award of dealership or granting license or authorization which is purely a commercial activity. Therefore, there is no ::14:: infringement of any fundamental right or statutory legal right on part of the Petitioner. The contention of learned counsel for the Petitioner that the Petitioner was instructed by one of the officer namely Mr. Rajiv, the Sales Field Officer, as per his instructions only the Petitioner submitted required documents physically on 09.04.2024 to him at office of the respondent, as such the same were not uploaded through online, which is not a proper defence on the part of the Petitioner since the terms of tender notice specifically contemplates that every document should be through online only. In the absence of non-impleading the said person as party respondent claiming her right/action is contrary to the terms of the notice, as per Clause 4(vi)(i) as extracted above, which clearly indicates that every document should be through online mode through web portal of the respondent. Therefore, the contention of the petitioner even though the petitioner submitted required documents physically, but the respondent erroneously come to conclusion that the petitioner failed in comply the terms of tender is valid and liable to be upheld. 20. In fact, the petitioner uploaded the subject documents on 31.05.2024 which is three weeks after the cut-off date. The fact remaining that in the meanwhile, after rejecting the claim of the petitioner on 22.05.2024 they went ahead and selected the 7th ::15:: Respondent, who complied with all terms of tender notice as well as selection guidelines as required. 21. The contention of the 7th Respondent that he submitted his lease deed in respect of the land even at the time of application. Therefore, the 7th Respondent is a suitable and eligible candidate for such selection. Once the selection is completed, the petitioner is not entitled to invoke the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is valid and sustainable since the selection was made on merit basis in terms of tender notice as well as selection guidelines of the Respondents. 22. In similar circumstances Hon’ble Apex Court in M/s N.G. Projects Limited vs M/S Vinod Kumar Jain (Supra 1) observed as under: “In view of the above judgments of this Court, the Writ Court should refrain itself from imposing its decision over the decision of the employer as to whether or not to accept the bid of a tenderer. The Court does not have the expertise to examine the terms and conditions of the present- day economic activities of the State and this limitation should be kept in view. Courts should be even more reluctant in interfering with contracts involving technical issues as there is a requirement of the necessary expertise to adjudicate upon such issues. The approach of the Court should be not to find fault with magnifying glass in its hands, rather the Court should examine as to whether the decision-making process is after com- plying with the procedure contemplated by the tender conditions. If the Court finds that there is total arbitrariness or that the tender has been granted in a malafide manner, still the Court should refrain from interfering in the grant of tender but instead relegate the parties to seek damages for the wrongful exclusion rather than to injunct the execution of the ::16:: contract. The injunction or interference in the tender leads to additional costs on the State and is also against public interest. Therefore, the State and its citizens suffer twice, firstly by paying escalation costs and secondly, by being deprived of the infrastructure for which the present- day Governments are expected to work.” 23. Learned counsel for respondent-corporation also relied upon the judgment rendered by the High Court of Chattisgarh in W.P.No.2853/2024, wherein the Hon’ble Court held that failure to comply with mandatory tender requirements, including submission of essential documents like affidavits, indemnity-cum-undertakings constitutes a non- rectifiable defects which disqualifies the applicant. The said judgment squarely applies to the present case, as the petitioner’s non-compliance with Clause 23 and other guidelines renders her application invalid. The principle of strict adherence to tender guidelines, upheld in the Chattisgarh High Court judgment, leaves no room for judicial interference in such matters. 24. In view of the reasons stated above and on perusal of the terms of the notice as well as terms of selection guidelines, the Petitioner herein miserably failed in compliance of the terms of tender notice as well as selection guidelines and also not supported by any legal right whatsoever and in view of admitted fact that the Petitioner did not submit the documents within the time prescribed by the Respondent even having availed number of opportunities for submission of the same. As such, the ::17:: petitioner is not entitled any claim or relief much-less as prayed in the petition. 25. On the above analysis, present Writ Petition is devoid of merits and liable to the dismissed. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. The miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. ______________________________________ JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA Dt: 06.03.2025 krk ::18:: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA 235 WRIT PETITION NO: 18570 of 2024 06.03.2025 krk