Manoj Kumar v. Indian Oil Corporation Limited
$~2 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 8636/2024 MANOJ KUMAR .....Petitioner Through:
Ms.
Pooja Singh, Mr.
Vivek Bhadauria, Advocates.
versus INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED .....Respondent Through:
Ms. Mala Narayan, Mr. Shashwat Goel, Ms. Isha Roy, Advocates.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA
O R D E R
% 08.07.2024 CM APPL. 35359/2024 (Exemption) 1.
Exemption is granted, subject to all just exceptions. 2.
The Applicant shall file legible and clearer copies of exempted documents, compliant with practice rules, before the next date of hearing. 3.
Accordingly, the application stands disposed of. W.P.(C) 8636/2024 & CM APPL. 35358/2024 (For Stay) 4.
The Petitioner through the instant petition prays for quashing the rejection of Petitioner's candidature for allotment/award of RO Dealership under open category and also to issue Letter of Intent to the Petitioner and, accordingly, withdraw the letter dated 08th May, 2024, against the Petitioner. 5.
The brief facts of the case are as follows:
5.1.
On 28th June, 2023, Indian Oil Corporation Limited/Respondent invited The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
applications for award of RO Dealership for which the Petitioner applied on 25th August, 2023. One of the eligibility conditions was that the location of the bidders, for the purpose of allotment, had to be between KM Stone No. 3 and 5 on Mainpuri-Sirsaganj Road, District Mainpuri, Uttar Pradesh. 5.2.
On 25th November, 2023, Petitioner was informed through email that he had qualified for the draw of lots for selection of the said RO Dealership and he was requested to appear before the Divisional Office at Agra, Uttar Pradesh along with the necessary documents. Subsequently, on 09th December, 2023, Petitioner was also notified of his provisional selection. 5.3.
However, on 8th May, 2024, Petitioner received a report dated 29th February, 2024 of the Land Evaluation Committee stating that the land offered by the Petitioner "was not found in advertised stretch". 5.4.
Being aggrieved by such rejection the Petitioner filed the instant petition.
6.
Counsel for the Petitioner contends that the location of his land is 4.6 Kms away from the zero point and places reliance on screenshot of Google Map displaying the said distance.
7.
Per contra, counsel for the Respondent points out that the physical verification of the land site reveals that Petitioners land was not between KM Stone No. 3 and 5 hence, ineligible to be selected for the RO Dealership. 8.
The Court has considered the afore-mentioned contentions of the parties.
9.
In the opinion of the Court, the distance of 4.6 Km from zero point as is irrelevant as the eligibility criteria specified in the advertisement issued by the Respondent clearly stipulates that the location must be between KN Stone No. 3 and 5 on Mainpuri-Sirsaganj Road, District Mainpuri, Uttar Pradesh. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
10.
In light of the above, the Petitioner is not fulfilling the eligibility criteria and, therefore, not entitled for allotment under the advertisement in question. 11.
Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed and disposed of. SANJEEV NARULA, J JULY 8, 2024/ab The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.