Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 4106 (HP)

Kanta Kumari alias Kanta Thakur v. Jyoti Thakur

2025-12-17

G S Sandhawalia, Jiya Lal Bhardwaj

body2025
JUDGMENT : JIYA LAL BHARDWAJ, J. The appellant has filed the present appeal against judgment dated 07.10.2016, passed by the learned Single Judge in CWP No. 9773 of 2011, titled Jyoti Thakur vs. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. & Ors., vide which the writ petition preferred by the writ petitioner/ respondent No. 1 herein (for short “writ petitioner”), hereinafter referred as writ petitioner has been allowed; and order dated 28.10.2011 (Annexure P-5), passed by respondent No.2- Corporation(Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.), hereinafter referred as Corporation, was quashed and set aside and the Corporation was directed to consider the case of the writ petitioner, for allotment of Rajiv Gandhi Gramin LPG Vitrak at Parwara, District Mandi, H.P., on Khasra No. 994. 2. The appellant was not a party in the Writ petition, but since she had applied for allotment of gas agency in question vide application dated 03.11.2016, preferred the present appeal along with an application seeking leave to appeal. This Court vide order dated 03.01.2017, was pleased to allow the application seeking leave to appeal by holding that the appellant is aggrieved party and prima facie appears to have been affected by the impugned judgment. 3. The writ petitioner had laid challenge to the rejection order dated 28.10.2011, whereby the Corporation had been pleased to cancel her candidature for award of Rajiv Gandhi Gramin LPG Vitrak (hereinafter referred as ‘RGGLV’) at Parwara, District Mandi, H.P., on the ground that the first plot comprised in Khasra No. 1005 offered by her, was not found suitable for the construction of godown as the same is less than the minimum required dimensions of 20 x 24 meters; the second plot comprised in Khasra No. 994 was also not found suitable for the construction of godown as the same is not approachable, because it is covered on all sides by the land owned by others; and the third plot bearing Khasra No. 1003, offered by the writ petitioner was not found owned by her or by any other members of the family unit as given in multi distributorship norms. 4. 4. The facts which are necessary for adjudication of the issue in the present appeal as emerged from the perusal of the writ petition are that the Corporation had issued an advertisement on 11.10.2010, inviting applications for award of Rajiv Gandhi Gramin LPG Vitrak at Parwara, District Mandi, H.P. The writ petitioner in pursuance of the advertisement issued by the Corporation applied on prescribed format. From the writ record, it is clear that vide communication dated 06.06.2011, the writ petitioner was requested to be present along with photo identity card issued by any government department for draw of lots at 10.00 AM on 01.07.2011, since she had fulfilled the criteria postulated in the brochure and had secured minimum qualifying marks i.e. 80. 5. The writ petitioner was selected in the draw of lots. However, before issuing the letter of intent, field verification was to be carried out as required under the brochure. The relevant criteria as postulated in brochure for selection is reproduced hereunder: “12. Selection Process 12.1. A Committee consisting of two Officers of the concerned Oil Company will do scrutiny of the application and award marks to the applicants based on the information given in the application 12.2. Selection will be done by draw of lot out of all eligible applicants securing minimum qualifying marks. Minimum qualifying marks is 60% for locations reserved under SC/ST category and minimum 80% marks for all other category locations 12.3. The list of ineligible applicants, eligible but not qualified applicants and qualified applicants for draw of lot will be made available on the notice board of the concerned office of the Oil Company as well as on the website of the concerned Oil Company. 12.4. All the applicants will be individually informed about the status of their application. Ineligible and eligible but not qualified applicants can representations within 15 days from the date of the letter. 12.5. Efforts would be made by Oil Company to ensure that all the representation/complaints are disposed off within 3 months. 12.6. After disposal of representations/complaints if any, all the eligible candidates who have qualified will be asked to report at a specified place on specified date and time for draw of lot. The same will be notified in the local newspapers. Each qualified candidate will be issued a token number and this token number will be recorded on his/her application. 12.7. After disposal of representations/complaints if any, all the eligible candidates who have qualified will be asked to report at a specified place on specified date and time for draw of lot. The same will be notified in the local newspapers. Each qualified candidate will be issued a token number and this token number will be recorded on his/her application. 12.7. All token numbers will be put in an empty box in the presence of the candidates, the officials of the Company and the invited guest from amongst the local MP, MLA, Zilla Parishad, Panchayat Samiti Chairman, Sarpanch, Revenue officials etc. However, a quorum comprising of at least 50% of the candidates (whose names are there in the draw) and the concerned company officials could be sufficient to proceed with the draw of lots. The proceeding of the draw will be video graphed 12.8. One token number will be drawn out and the candidate to whom the token number was allotted will be declared as selected candidate. 12.9. Field verification will be carried out for the selected candidate and if the information given in the application by the applicant is found to be correct, Letter of Intent will be issued to the selected candidate. 12.10. In case of rejection of selected candidate due to findings in the Field Investigation or if selected candidate is unable to develop facilities for Rajiv Gandhi Gramin LPG Vitrak within the specified time, then his candidature will be cancelled and draw will be held again from the remaining qualified eligible candidates to select the next candidate following the procedure as mentioned above in para 12.3 to 12.6” 6. After declaring the writ petitioner as selected candidate, the field verification was carried out by the Corporation as per the criteria laid down at point 12.9. The field officer of the Corporation visited the plots offered by the writ petitioner, to ascertain the genuineness and correctness of the information furnished by her on the prescribed format in terms of the advertisement issued by the Corporation. 7. As per the communication dated 28.10.2011, issued by the Corporation, the writ petitioner was informed that her candidature for RGGLV at Parwara, District Mandi, H.P., has been rejected on the ground mentioned in the said communication. 8. 7. As per the communication dated 28.10.2011, issued by the Corporation, the writ petitioner was informed that her candidature for RGGLV at Parwara, District Mandi, H.P., has been rejected on the ground mentioned in the said communication. 8. The perusal of the reasons mentioned in the communication dated 28.10.2011 reveals that the plots offered by the writ petitioner were not found suitable for construction of godown for LPG distributorship under RGGLV, at Parwara, District Mandi, H.P. 9. The writ petitioner feeling aggrieved by cancellation of her candidature preferred a writ petition before this Court and the learned Single Judge after perusal of the reply as well as the report of the Commission appointed by this Court, vide order dated 04.01.2013, came to the conclusion that from the material available on record, the Corporation has rightly not considered the case of the writ petitioner for construction of godown on the land comprised in Khasra No. 1005, and the alternative site offered by her by furnishing an affidavit of one Sh. Jalam Singh, wherein he agreed to give land comprised in Khasra No. 1003 to the writ petitioner in exchange of land comprised in Khasra No. 1005, clearly suggest that the said land was not suitable for construction of godown, since the same is less than the dimension of 20 x 24 meters, as prescribed under brochure. As per clause 4(g) of the brochure ‘applicant should own a suitable plot of minimum 20 x 24 meters in dimension for construction of LPG cylinder store/godown’. It further provides that ‘Own’ means having clear ownership title of the property in the name of the applicant/family member of the family unit as defined in multiple dealership/distributorship norms. Since as per the case of the writ petitioner herself, Sh. Jalam Singh is not related to her, no illegality has been committed by the Corporation in rejecting the plot bearing Khasra No. 1003, offered by the writ petitioner. So far as Khasra No. 994 offered by the writ petitioner as first choice in her application is concerned, the Corporation vide communication dated 28.10.2011, found that the same is not suitable for construction of godown, since the same is not approachable and is covered on all sides by the land owned by others. 10. So far as Khasra No. 994 offered by the writ petitioner as first choice in her application is concerned, the Corporation vide communication dated 28.10.2011, found that the same is not suitable for construction of godown, since the same is not approachable and is covered on all sides by the land owned by others. 10. The learned Single Judge after perusal of the report submitted by the Commission, in pursuance of the order dated 04.01.2013 passed by this Court, came to the conclusion that from the PWD link road Majhol at Km 7/265 there is a link road constructed by the Block Department having length 230 meters upto primary School Majhol and 50 meters upto Khasra No. 994 muhal Parwara, which clearly suggests that Khasra No. 994 is abutting to the road and light transport vehicles can ply on the road, and since the Local Commissioner has categorically reported that on this road, HRTC bus plies till Primary School from where the writ petitioner’s plot is hardly at a distance of 50 meters, to which also road has been constructed and the light motor vehicles can go up to the plot of the writ petitioner. Accordingly it was held that the Khasra No. 994 is suitable for construction of godown and same is all weather motorable approach road as required under the brochure and thus, the writ petition was allowed and order dated 28.10.2011 passed by the Corporation was quashed and set aside with direction to the Corporation to consider the case of the writ petitioner for allotment of RGGLV at Parwara, District Mandi, H.P., on Khasra No. 994, as mentioned in the application filed by her in pursuance to advertisement (Annexure P-1), within a period of four weeks from the date of the judgment. 11. The appellant has assailed the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge on the grounds that none of the plots offered by the writ petitioner satisfy the conditions laid down in the brochure and as far as Khasra No. 994 is concerned, the same does not have free access and therefore contended that the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge is not sustainable. 12. 12. It was further the case of the appellant that after rejecting the case of the writ petitioner by the Corporation, the appellant was declared successful in draw of lots and her site was also approved and this fact was not brought to the notice of the learned Single Judge. The Corporation had filed the objections to the report of the Local Commissioner, which did not find favour with the learned Single Judge. Further there was no direct access to the site offered by the writ petitioner and even as per the report of Commission only light motor vehicles could go on that road and thus, it was apparent that site offered by the writ petitioner i.e. on Khasra No. 994 was not suitable and thus, prayed for setting aside the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge. 13. On the other hand, the learned counsel representing the writ petitioner has supported the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge and submitted that, as per the report of the Commission, which was appointed by this Court, Khasra No. 994 is suitable for opening the godown. The learned counsel further submitted that from the PWD link road Majhol at Km. 7/265, there is a link road constructed by the Block Department having length 230 meters upto Primary School Majhol and 50 meters upto Khasra No. 994 Muhal Parwara, which clearly suggests that there exists a road and the vehicles can ply up to the plot of the writ petitioner, though only light transport vehicles. 14. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record carefully and the judgment under challenge. 15. Before proceeding further, it is relevant to quote the relevant para of the order dated 04.01.2013, passed by this Court whereby the Commission has been appointed and directed to submit its report, which is as under: “In view of the claim and counter claim so laid, this Court feels that the appointment of a Commission to ascertain the factual position on the spot and submit the report to this Court qua this aspect of the matter would meet the ends of justice. In view of the fact that local Tehsildar has already issued certificate, the members of the Commission, in my opinion and even acceptable to the parties on both sides also, can be local S.D.M., Chachiot at Gohar and also the Executive Engineer/Assistant Engineer, Public works Department, Chachiot at Gohar. The Commission so appointed shall visit the site within two weeks from the date of production of a copy of this order by the petitioner. The Commission shall file its report within two weeks after its visit to the spot in this case. The Commissioner shall submit the report with respect to the following:- 1. the existence of link road, if any, to the plot of the petitioner bearing khasra No.994 situate in Mohal Parwara, Tehsil Chachiot, District Mandi and its length. from the main road, 2. the nature of vehicle which can be plied on this link road, more particularly, upto the plot bearing Khasra No.994 over which the petitioner proposes to raise the construction of godown, 3. the condition of the link road, i.e. all weather or not, and 4. the name of the main road from where the link road, if any in existence and constructed upto the plot of the petitioner.” 16. A perusal of the ibid order clearly reveals that the Court had formulated the points to be addressed by the Commission. 17. The commission after visiting the spot submitted its report and the same is also reproduced hereunder: “REPORT ON POINT NO. 1 ?? 4:- The Hon'ble High Court has constituted the Commission vide its order dated 04-01-2013 in CWP No. 9773/2011. Comprising of Sub Divisional Magistrate Gohar, Executive Engineer HPPWD Division Gohar. The Commission visited the site on dated 02-03-2013 and report is as under :- 1. There Exist a PWD main road MDR Kandha Pandoh road from which Km. 6/200 there is a link road namely Kelodhar Parwara having length 7/265 upto Majhol village. 2. This road is fair weather motorable road and H.R.T.C. bus regularly plying on this road. 3. The link road is all weather road. 4. From the PWD link road Majhol at Km 7/265 there is a link road constructed by the Block department having length 230 meter up to Primary School Majhol and 50 meter up to Khasra No. 994 Muhal Parwara. 3. The link road is all weather road. 4. From the PWD link road Majhol at Km 7/265 there is a link road constructed by the Block department having length 230 meter up to Primary School Majhol and 50 meter up to Khasra No. 994 Muhal Parwara. Only light Transport Vehicle can ply up to the petitioner plot comprised in Khasra No. 994 situated in muhal Parwara.” 18. A perusal of the report submitted by the Commission reveals that there exists a PWD main road MDR Kandha Pandoh road from which Km. 6/200 there is a link road namely Kelodhar Parwara having length 7/265 upto Majhol village and this road is fair weather motorable road, but from PWD link road Majhol at Km 7/265, there is a link road constructed by the Block department having length 230 meters up to Primary School Majhol and 50 meters up to Khasra No. 994 Muhal Parwara. The report also suggests that only light transport vehicle can ply up to the plot of the writ petitioner comprised in khasra No. 994, meaning thereby heavy transport vehicle cannot be driven upto the godown, if to be constructed on Khasra No. 994. 19. The writ petitioner also filed the objections to the report and stated that the length of the link road is just 50 meters and since the agency would be for a small village and the consumption would be very less, therefore, heavy transport vehicle will not be required. The Corporation also filed the objections to the report and submitted that during field verification, it was found that the land offered by the writ petitioner was not suitable for construction of godown at its dimension was less than the minimum requirement of 20 x 24 meters. Khasra No. 994 was not approachable by road, as it is covered on all sides by the land owned by the others. Further the inspection carried out on 02.03.2013, does not satisfy the requirement of the corporation as per its guidelines. The Link road has been constructed after the last field verification report was submitted by the officers of the Corporation and the link road does not satisfy the requirement of the Corporation, which provides that the land for construction of godown will be considered suitable, if it is freely accessible through all weather motorable road. The Link road has been constructed after the last field verification report was submitted by the officers of the Corporation and the link road does not satisfy the requirement of the Corporation, which provides that the land for construction of godown will be considered suitable, if it is freely accessible through all weather motorable road. The LPG cylinders from the plant of the Corporation unit are sent to the LPG godown in heavy transport vehicle only and the contract with the contractor, who transport the LPG cylinders, is of carrying capacity of 306 cylinders (14.2 kg weight) of each filled cylinder. 20. The learned Single Judge while allowing the writ petition has not considered one of the most vital fact that it is for the Corporation to take a final call while accepting the application of the candidate for allotment of LPG distributorship. Once the Corporation had found that Khasra No. 994 is not suitable, which is also evident from the report of the Local Commissioner, wherein it has been mentioned that only light transport vehicle can ply up to the petitioner’s plot, which is up to 50 meters from Primary School Majhol, up to which point, there is a link road constructed by the Block Department having length of 230 meters, the learned Single Judge could not have interfered with the order of rejection of the candidature of the writ petitioner. 21. We have also perused the photographs at page 114 of the writ record, from which it can be gathered that there is a sharp curve at plot No. 995 and in case even the light transport vehicles are plied on that road, it can lead to accident. So far as Khasra No. 994 is concerned, the road is not in good condition. The photographs placed on record have not been disputed by the writ petitioner and thus, it can be safely concluded that the decision of Corporation to cancel the candidature of the petitioner for allotment of LPG agency under RGGLV at Parwara, District Mandi, H.P., did not suffer from any illegality or arbitrariness or actuated with malice and the same was as per law. 22. So far as the offering of two other Khasra numbers are concerned i.e. Khasra Nos. 22. So far as the offering of two other Khasra numbers are concerned i.e. Khasra Nos. 1003 and 1005, the learned Single Judge has returned the findings that the said Khasra numbers were rightly rejected by the Corporation and the writ petitioner has not laid challenge to that part of the judgment and only issue is now with respect to the Khasra No. 994, qua which the learned Single Judge has given direction that the said Khasra number was suitable as per the report submitted by the Commission vide order dated 04.01.2013, passed by this Court. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited and another versus Meet Kalhar , (2016) 15 SCC 498 , has held that the reasons given by the Corporation cannot be enlarged or supplemented and further guidelines have to be understood by application of the principles of purposive interpretation having regard to the underlying objective thereof. In the present case since the corporation has found that the land offered by the writ petitioner is not found suitable for allotment of RGGLV at Parwara, District Mandi, H.P., the learned Single Judge could not have held that the decision of the Corporation is unjust, discriminatory and in complete violation of principle of natural justice. 23. The Division Bench of this Court on 11.09.2018 in CWP No. 383 of 2018, titled, Bhupesh Sharma vs. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited and others , has held that a successful candidate has no indefeasible right for being awarded the LPG distributorship, because as per the terms of the brochure the grant of dealership was inter alia dependent upon the field inspection, as envisaged in the brochure. In the present case since the field agency has come to the conclusion that the land offered by the writ petitioner is not suitable and further the said fact has also been strengthened by the report of the Commission, which has not been disputed by the writ petitioner, wherein it has been categorically stated that only light transport vehicles can travel up to Khasra No. 994, which is 50 meters away from the link road. Thus, the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge is not sustainable and hence the same is liable to be quashed and set aside. 24. Thus, the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge is not sustainable and hence the same is liable to be quashed and set aside. 24. We are of the considered view that the cancellation of the candidature of the writ petitioner vide order dated 28.10.2011 passed by the Corporation does not call for any interference and hence the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge, which is under challenge is set aside. 25. In view of the above, the appeal preferred by the appellant is allowed, and the order of learned Single Judge passed on 07.10.2016 in CWP No. 9773 of 2011, is set aside and respondent No. 1-corporation is directed to proceed further with the case of the appellant for allotment of RGG LPG Vitrak ‘gas agency’ at Parwara, Tehsil Chahiot, District Mandi, HP. 26. Pending applications if any also stand disposed of. No orders as to cost.