HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPN. AND ANR.versusCHANDER BHAN AND ANR.

             HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPN. AND ANR.                            A

                      CHANDER BHAN AND ANR.

                           SEPTEMBER 5. 2006

        [ARIJIT PASA YAT AND LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA, JJ.]                    B


       Public distribution-Petroleum products-Retail outlet dealership-
Allot111ent of-Advertisement by Oil Corporation-Applicant applied in open
category mentioning about availability of a particular site-Letter of intent C
given-Subsequently another site allotted to the Corporation for running
Co111pany Owned Company Operated outlet by Urban Development Authority-
The said outlet reserved for SC/ST category as per changed Government
po/icy-Clai111 of applicant for allot111ent of outlet on the basis of letter of
intent-Held: not eligible since he had neither applied for the site allotted
by the Development Authority nor letter of intent given in respect of that D
site-A/so because subsequently the outlet 1t'as reserved for SC/ST categOJy.

       Advertisement was issued by the appellant-Corporation inviting
application for appointment as retail outlet dealer. The invitation was for the
open category. Respondent No. 1 applied for _the same in open category stating
in his application that a suitable site at Gurgaon was readily available with E
him. A letter of intent was given to respondent No. 1 approving to run a retail
outlet dealership at the said site. Thereafter Haryana Urban Development
Authority issued an advertisement offering land to Nationalized Oil
Companies. A plot at Sector 53, G urgaon was allotted to the appellant-
Corporation. The outlet at Sector 53 was a Company Owned Company F
Operated outlet. According to a subsequent policy decision of Government of
India the said outlet was reserved for Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe
category. Respondent No. 1 staked a claim that he was entitled to be allotted
the outlet in terms of letter of intent issued to him. He filed Writ Petition.
High Court allowed the petition on the ground that the Corporation had acted
on behalf of respondent No. I for getting the allotment of land from the G
Development Authority. Hence the present appeal.

     Allowing the appeal, the Court

     HELD: 1. The factual position of the case goes to show that the
                                   737                                      II
    738                     SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] SUPP. 5 S.C.R.

A application of respondent No. I for retail outlet was in respect of a different
  site and not the one allotted by the Development Authority. So far as the plot
  at Sector 53 is concerned, respondent No. I was not in picture. The outlet
  was to be run on Company Owned Company Operated basis. As borne out from
  the document brought on record, respondent No. I was not eligible for
B allotment of the outlet at the site in question. Though initially it was for the
  open category, later on it was earmarked for the Scheduled Castes and
  Scheduled Tribes reserved category. Even though reference has been made to           ...
  the letter of intent issued in favour of respondent No. I, that cannot in any
  way assist respondent No. I because of the nature of allotment made by the
  Development Authority and the directives of Ministry of Petroleum and Gas.
C There was no agreement between the Corporation and respondent No. I for
  allotment of the site at Sector 53, to respondent No. I. (741-D-F)

        2. The letter of allotment of the Development Authority which refers to
  the letter of intent cannot mean the letter of intent issued in respect of another
  plot of land. No reference is made to respondent No. I even by implication in
D the Development Authority's letter of allotment. Obviously it refers to a letter
  of intent meant to be issued after due allotment. The High Court proceeded
  on erroneous premises to hold as if there was existing agreement between
  Corporation and respondent No. I, in respect of the plot in question. The High
  Court's conclusion that Corporation was acting on behalf of respondent No.
E I and/or that the allotment was in favour of respondent No. I is clearly contrary
  to materials on record. (741-G-H; 742-A-Bl

           CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 3936 of2006.

         From Judgment and Order dated 17.1.2006 of the High Court of Punjab
F   and Haryana at Chandigarh, in C.W.P. No. 12669/2005.

          V.A. Bobde, Sanjay Kapur, Raj iv Kapur, Shubhra Kapur and Arti Singh
    for the Appellants.

       Mukul Rohtagi, Vijay Jhanji, Sanjeev Bhansal and Yash Pal Dhingra for
G the Respondents .
          . The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

           ARI.HT PASA YAT, J. Leave granted.

           Appellants call in question legality of the judgment rendered by a
H
             HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPN. v. CHANDER BHAN IPASA VAT, .I.] 739
    ...
           Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court allowing the writ A
           petition of the respondent No. I who had filed the writ application before the
           High Couit seeking a declaration that the advertisement issued by the appellants
           on 13.7.2005 for allotment of retail outlet dealership of the appellant No.I
           (hereinafter referred to as the 'Corporation') at Sector 53, Gurgaon was illegal.
           Further prayer was for a direction to the Corporation to allot the said retail
           outlet to the respondent No. I purportedly on the basis of a letter of intent B
           dated 24.6.2003. The High Court held that the writ application deserved to be
           allowed and quashed the advertisement so far as it related to appointment of
           dealer for retail outlet at the site in question i.e. Sector 53, Gurgaon. Further
           direction was given to allot the said outlet dealership to the respondent No. I.

                 Background facts as projected by the appellant in a nutshell are as
                                                                                           c
           follows:

                    On 19.8.2000 an advertisement was issued by the Corporation inviting
           appl icaticn for appointment as dealer in respect of allocations at several
           places inc'uding a site at Gurgaon. The present dispute relates to the Sr. No.3 D
            i.e. alloca. ·on for Delhi Jaipur Road Town Area, Gurgaon Revenue District,
           Gurgaon and it was for the open category. The nature of dealership was
           company owned. The first paragraph of the advertisement indicated that the
           appointment of dealers was of the various categories for company owned
           retail outlets on site owned by the Corporation/leased to the Corporation/
           dealer owned <'utlet on site/super structure to be leased to the Corporation E
           by the dealers selected. In the advertisement it was indicated at paragraph 2
           that for dealer,i1ip advertised for locations other than those reserved for
           scheduled castes category the applicant was required to furnish, along with
           the application, details of land which he/she would make available for the
           retail outlet. In the process for assessment of the evaluation of suitability, 35 F
           marks were allotted out of I00 for capability to provide infrastructure and
           facilities (land, godown, showroom etc.). Undisputedly the respondent No. I
           applied in the open category. On 24.6.2003 a letter of intent was issued to the
           respondent No. I whereby approval was given to run a retail ~utlet dealership
           at district, Gurgaon. In the application filed by the respondent No. I, he had
           stated that the land was readily available and attached rough sketch details. G
           Because he answered in affirmative to the question as to whether he had
           suitable site readily available he was allotted 35 marks. In respondent No.1 's
           letter dated 27.8.2003, he had given the details of the description of the land
      ..   as follows:
                                                                                           H
;
    740                     SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] SUPP. 5 S.C.R.                ~    ~




A           "Location-Gurgaon-Jhajjar Road-at Village Chandu, Distt Gurgaon-on
            State Highway. Area 150 x 198 sq-ft.''

         The position was reiterated even in a writ petition which was filed earlier
  before the High Court i.e. CWP No. 7960 of 2004 wherein specific reference
  was made to the situation of the land at villages Siwana Moja, Gurgaon-Jhajjar
B Road (site at Chandu Budeda). While the matter stood thus, Haryana Urban
  Development Authority (in short 'HUDA ') issued an advertisement offering                ..
  land to Nationalized Oil Companies, Government Departments and State
  Government Undertakings. One of the Sectors which was allotted to the
  Corporation was Sector 53, Gurgaon and the size of the site was 30.30 mtrs.
  There was no letter of intent issued by the Corporation in respect of said land
c to the respondent No. I, as the letter of intent related to another site and not
  one at Sector 53. Taking advantage of mention about issuance of letter of
  intent to respondent No. I, in one communication, he staked a claim that he
  was entitled to be allotted the outlet in terms of the letter of intent. The
  allotment letter was not in favour of respondent No. I, but was in favour of
D the Corporation. It is, therefore, submitted that the High Court clearly missed
  these relevant factors and came to an abrupt conclusion that respondent No. I
  was entitled to allotment pursuant to the letter of intent dated 24.6.2003. It is
  pointed out that the outlet at Sector 53, Gurgaon was a Company Owned
  Company Operated (in short the 'COCO') outlet and it was reserved for the
  scheduled castes/scheduled tribe category. A policy decision was taken by
E the Government of India, Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas in this regard.
  Though initially the Corporation had advertised indicating the outlet to be of
  open category, subsequently in view of the changed policy decision a
  corrigendum was issued and the outlet is earmarked for the Scheduled Castes/
  Scheduled Tribes category. It is pointed out that the High Court proceeded
F on  the basis as if the writ petitioner-respondent No. I had applied for allotment
  of the land which was allott~d to him. On the contrary HUDA's advertisement
  clearly indicated that the same was meant for the Nationalized Oil Companies.
  The High Court erroneously proceeded on the basis as if it was conceded by
  the Corporation that the application was made by the respondent No. I and
  allotment was made to it. In essence it is submitted that the High Court had
G lost sight of the relevant factors and, therefore, the impugned judgment
  deserves to be set aside.

            In response, learned counsel for the respondent No. I submitted that at
     all stages Corporation accepted that a letter of intent was issued for a retail       ..
     outlet at Gurgaon. Though the respondent No. I offered the land as is accepted
H
  HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPN. v. CHANDER BHAN [PA SAY AT. J.] 741

 by the Corporation, No Objection Certificate (in short the 'NOC') was applied A
in the name of the Corporation as ultimately the land was to be leased out
by the respondent No. I to the Corporation. While Corporation's request for
NOC was pending, HUDA came out with the advertisement. Corporation led
the respondent No. I to believe that the Corporation was making the application
on behalf of the respondent No. I. It is clearly indicated in the letter of
allotment by HUDA that if the letter of intent is not converted to regular B
dealership, the allotment will be cancelled. lt is submitted that the reference
to letter of intent was in respect of respondent No. I as no other letter of intent
had been issued. The intention was all along to allot the outlet to the
respondent No. I. After allotment of land by HUDA, in between some powerful
persons started manipulating and the retail outlet is now presently being run C
allegedly on contract basis by one Smt. Krishna Singh who is none other than
wife of the principal Secretary of the State. She is not the holder of any letter
of intent. If the contractual arrangement was to be entered into, obviously
respondent no. I should have been the first choice.

      The factual position as detailed above goes to show that the application D
of the respondent No. I for retail outlet was in respect of a different site and
not the one allotted by HUDA. So far as the plot at Sector 53 in Gurgaon is
concerned, respondent No. I was not in picture. The outlet was to be run on
COCO basis. As borne out from the document brought on record clearly,
respondent No. I was not eligible for allotment of the outlet at the site in E
question. Though initially it was for the open category, later on it was
earmarked for the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes reserved category.
Even though reference has been made to the letter of intent issued in favour
of respondent No. I, that cannot in any way assist the respondent No. I
because of the nature of allotment made by HUDA and the directives of
Ministry of Petroleum and Gas. There was no agreement between the F
Corporation and respondent No. I for allotment of the site at Sector 53,
Gurgaon to the respondent No. I.

      Much emphasis has been laid by learned counsel for respondent No. I
on the letter of allotment of HUDA, which refers ta the letter of intent.
Obviously the letter of intent cannot mean the letter of intent i"ssued in G
respect of another plot of land. No reference is made to respondent No. I even
by implication in HUDA's letter of allotment. Obviously it refers to a letter of
intent meant to be issued after due allotment. The High Court proceeded on
erroneous premises to hold as if there was existing agreement between
Corporation and respondent No. I, in respect of the plot in question. The High H
    742                    SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2006] SUPP. 5 S.C.R.

A Court's conclusion that Corporation was acting on behalf of the resJ..iondent
  No. I and/or that the allotment was in favour of respondent No. I is clearly
  contrary to materials on record. The High Court's impugned judgment is
  clearly indefensible and is set aside. However, it would be appropriate for the
  Corporation to take immediate steps to give effect to the advertisement dated
  13.7.2005 and complete the process as early as possible. If so felt necessary,
B fresh advertisement can be issued at the earliest taking note of changed
  factors if any taking place, after issuance of the notification. It would be in   ..
  public interest to complete the process of selection at the earliest to avoid
  unnecessary criticism as is leveled in the present case. We make it clear that
  we have not expressed any opinion about the acceptability of the criticism.
c        The appeal is allowed but in the circumstances without any orders as
    to costs.

    K.K.T.                                                      Appeal allowed.




                                                                                         ..