Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Suvarna Shrikrishna Deore, a Scheduled Caste (SC) candidate with 40% visual impairment, applied for a retail outlet dealership (petrol pump) advertised by Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. (BPCL) on 25-11-2018 for a location in Jalgaon district, Maharashtra, reserved for SC PH category. She applied on 21-12-2018 and was selected through a draw of lots on 27-11-2019. She deposited Rs.30,000/- on 07-11-2019, and a spot inspection of the offered land was conducted. Subsequently, BPCL issued a show-cause notice on 10-02-2020 alleging that the land offered was owned by her husband, not by her, and that she had suppressed this fact. The petitioner replied, but BPCL cancelled her allotment on 27-02-2020 without granting a personal hearing. The petitioner challenged the cancellation by way of a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. The court examined whether the cancellation was arbitrary and violative of natural justice. It noted that the petitioner had not disclosed the true ownership of the land, which was a material fact. However, the court held that BPCL should have given her an opportunity of being heard before cancelling the allotment, as she had already deposited money and incurred expenses. The court set aside the cancellation order and directed BPCL to reconsider the matter after affording a hearing to the petitioner, but also observed that the non-disclosure was a serious issue that could justify cancellation if not satisfactorily explained.
Headnote
A) Administrative Law - Natural Justice - Cancellation of Allotment - BPCL Guidelines - The petitioner, selected for a SC PH category dealership, failed to disclose that the offered land was owned by her husband. BPCL cancelled the allotment without giving her an opportunity of hearing. Held that principles of natural justice require a pre-decisional hearing before an adverse order is passed, especially when the candidate had deposited money and incurred expenses. (Paras 1-10) B) Contract Law - Disclosure - Material Fact - Non-Disclosure of Land Ownership - The petitioner offered land for the retail outlet which was owned by her husband, not by her. BPCL's guidelines required the land to be owned by the applicant or with a clear title. Held that non-disclosure of the true owner constituted a material misrepresentation, justifying cancellation. (Paras 2-8) C) Constitutional Law - Article 226 - Writ Jurisdiction - Interference in Contractual Matters - The court held that while contractual matters are generally not interfered with under Article 226, where the action is arbitrary or violative of natural justice, the High Court can exercise its writ jurisdiction. (Para 9)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the cancellation of the petitioner's allotment of a retail outlet dealership by BPCL on the ground of non-disclosure of land ownership was justified and whether the petitioner was entitled to be heard before cancellation.
Final Decision
The court allowed the writ petition, set aside the cancellation order dated 27-02-2020, and directed BPCL to reconsider the matter after affording a personal hearing to the petitioner within four weeks.
Law Points
- Natural justice
- Principles of administrative law
- Contractual obligations
- Disclosure requirements in public allotments
