Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, an applicant for a retail outlet (petrol pump) dealership advertised by the Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. (IOC) on 14 September 2011, challenged the selection of the partnership firm of respondent nos. 5 and 6. The advertisement called for dealerships within 3 km from Borpadle Phata on the left-hand side of the Kolhapur-Ratnagiri Road. Three applications were received, including from the petitioner and the selected firm. One applicant was disqualified. In the interview held on 27 December 2012, the petitioner secured 84 marks while the respondents 5 and 6 were awarded 85.75 marks. The petitioner alleged that the marks were awarded contrary to the prescribed norms, particularly under the head 'Ready availability of finance', and that the land offered by respondents 5 and 6 did not meet the frontage requirement of 45X65 meters. Additionally, the petitioner pointed to discrepancies in the partnership deed, which showed conflicting dates of execution. The petitioner filed a complaint with the Grievance Redressal System of IOC on 17 January 2013, which was dismissed on 20 November 2014. Subsequently, the petitioner filed the present writ petition seeking cancellation of the selection, a direction to follow a new selection procedure via draw of lots as per guidelines dated 17 February 2014 and 23 June 2014, and cancellation of any letter of intent issued. The respondents defended the selection, stating that the land offered met all criteria as confirmed by an Investigation Report, and the partnership deed discrepancy was due to a typographical error, later rectified by submitting a new deed dated 26 December 2012. The IOC contended that the frontage was verified by governmental authorities and measured 47 meters, and the evaluation committee had appropriately dealt with all complaints. The High Court heard the parties and reserved judgment on 6 July 2017, pronouncing on 23 August 2017. The available text of the judgment does not include the court's final analysis or decision; however, the matter primarily revolved around the applicability of subsequent guidelines to a completed selection process and the fairness of the evaluation.
Issue of Consideration
Whether the selection of respondents 5 and 6 for the retail outlet dealership was arbitrary and in violation of the guidelines issued by the Ministry of Petroleum & Natural Gas dated 17/2/2014 and 23/6/2014, and whether the differential marking and frontage requirements were properly applied.
Case Details
2017 LawText (BOM) (08) 59
Writ Petition No. 913 of 2015
Naresh H. Patil, Smt. Bharati H. Dangre
S.G. Deshmukh i/b R.A. Shelke for petitioner, Anurag Gokhale a/w D.R. Shah for respondents 1 and 2, Sunil Gangan i/b RMG Law Associates for respondents 3 and 4, S.R. Ghanavat for respondent nos.5 and 6
Union of India, Ministry of Petroleum & Natural Gas, Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. (Marketing Division), Customer Service Cell Center, Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., Smt. Ashwini Uttam More, Samhaji Mahadeo More
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition challenging selection for retail outlet dealership
Remedy Sought
Cancellation of selection of respondents 5 and 6; direction to follow new selection procedure via draw of lots; cancellation of letter of intent if approved.
Filing Reason
Alleged irregularities in marking and land frontage requirement, and non-compliance with subsequent guidelines issued by the Ministry of Petroleum & Natural Gas.
Previous Decisions
Petitioner's complaint was rejected by the Grievance Redressal Committee of Indian Oil Corporation on 20 November 2014.
Issues
Whether the selection process was conducted in violation of the guidelines issued by the Ministry of Petroleum & Natural Gas on 17/2/2014 and 23/6/2014?
Whether marks awarded to respondents 5 and 6 were contrary to the brochure and whether petitioner was wrongly denied marks for 'Ready availability of finance'?
Whether the land offered by respondents 5 and 6 met the frontage requirement?
Whether the discrepancy in the partnership deed invalidated the application of respondents 5 and 6?
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that marks were improperly awarded; zero marks under 'Ready availability of finance' despite available funds; land offered did not have mandated frontage of 45x65 meters; partnership deed contained conflicting dates (executed on 11/10/2011 but last page dated 19/08/2005); subsequent guidelines dated 17/2/2014 and 23/6/2014 requiring draw of lots ought to have been followed, rendering the selection process void.
Respondents 5 and 6 contended that they were selected as per procedure; land fulfilled criteria as per Investigation Report; discrepancy in partnership deed was typographical error corrected by submitting new deed dated 26/12/2012.
Indian Oil Corporation defended that frontage was verified by government authorities and found to be 47 meters; complaint regarding partnership deed was considered and found not fatal; grievance redressal committee appropriately dealt with all issues.
Judgment Excerpts
three applicants including the petitioner applied for the said dealership.
The petitioner secured 84 marks and respondents 5 and 6 (Partners) were awarded 85.75 marks in the interview.
The required frontage was 45X65 meters.
respondents 5 and 6 submitted unregistered partnership deed on a Stamp paper of Rs.100/- which was said to be executed on 11 th October, 2011 but on the last page the date of party signing the deed was mentioned as 19 th August, 2005 at Kolhapur.
Guidelines issued by Respondent No.2 to the Respondent No.3 dated 17/2/2014 and 23/6/2014.
Procedural History
Advertisement published on 14 September 2011; applications submitted; interview held on 27 December 2012; petitioner filed complaint on 17 January 2013 before Grievance Redressal System; complaint dismissed on 20 November 2014; writ petition filed in 2015; court heard parties and reserved judgment on 6 July 2017; pronounced on 23 August 2017.
