Pawan Kumar v. Indian Oil Corporation Limited

(Haryana), vide Advertisement dated 28.06.2023, wherein the petitioner had applied for dealership under Group-1 Category for the location from Faridabad Bypass Road to Sant Surdas Metro Station on Chaudhary Charan Singh Marg, Faridabad. While submitting the application, petitioner had offered the land comprised in Rectangle No.58, Killa No.21/1, situated at Village Sihi, Tehsil Ballabhgarh, District Faridabad. 2.1 It transpires that the application of petitioner was rejected by the respondent-Corporation, vide letter dated 14.03.2024 (Annexure P-4), by observing as under:- "Dear Sir,

1. Please refer to your application received by us as Application form No.IOC16956367717642 on the subject.

2. Please also refer to our letter dated 05-Dec-2023 and wherein you were advised to submit initial Security Deposit & the specified documents.

3. We regret to inform you that your candidature has not been found to be eligible for RO dealership on the basis of documents submitted by you, for reasons as detailed below. Reason:

* Ownership of the land does not lie with the applicant.

4. In case you have any grievance against the rejection of your candidature as mentioned above, you may make your representation by 24-Mar-2024."

3.

In the aforementioned circumstances, petitioner has filed the instant writ petition before this Court seeking relief(s), as noticed hereinabove.

4.

Mr. Ashish Kapoor, Advocate appears on behalf of the respondent-Corporation, in pursuance of the advance copy of paper book having already been supplied to him, and submits that the land offered by the petitioner is not free from encumbrance and is a subject matter of

litigation as presently, two appeals bearing RSA No.1069 of 2023 and RSA No.1628 of 2023, are pending consideration before this Court. It is further submitted that even as per the latest revenue records, i.e. Jamabandi for the year 2023-24, the land offered by the petitioner is shown under the ownership of Haryana Urban Development Authority, Faridabad. 5.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to dislodge the aforesaid submission made by learned counsel for the respondent. 6.

In "Puneet Kumar Singh v. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd.", 2020(2) ILR (Allahabad) 448; a Division Bench of Allahabad High Court, while considering a case of rejection of candidature for the allotment of retail outlet dealership of petroleum products, examined the issue as to whether the suitability of the land determined by the Corporation can be questioned and whether the discretion of the Corporation should be judicially reviewed, observed as under:-

7.

The aforesaid judicial pronouncements clearly show that the respondent-Corporation is the best judge to consider the suitability of the land for setting up of Retail Outlet Dealership, as it is the Corporation, who has to invest.

8.

Upon considering the case in hand in the light of judicial pronouncements noticed above, I find no merit in the instant writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed.