On 11.06.2004, the appellant was informed by Depot Manager Marketing , Kunjaban, Agartala, of the respondent No.1 over telephone that the Survey Team of the respondent No.1 would visit the sites offered by the respective applicants on 12.06.2004 for the purpose of inspection of the land offered by the applicants.
It was, therefore, held that since the policy circular dated 4.9.2003 held the field on the date of the interview selection on 16.6.2004, the circular dated 1.11.2004 would have numberapplication.
Clause 5 of the lease deed gives the option to respondent No.2 to take further period of lease by executing a fresh deed.
Co. Owned/ Dealer owned Ranirbazar West Dealer owned OP Tripura Women 2 Agartala West Company ST .
Under the parameter land and infrastructure sub head suitable land and retail outlet provides a clear description of the desired candidates.
It is, however, authenticated by a numberary public at Agartala.
259/2004.
In the supplementing lease agreement dated 18.3.2004 it is provided as under The second party shall have right and or power to create sub tenancy, or the sub let or to create or grant lease in favour of any person, individual or body companyporate of the property and or in respect of the properties described in the scheduled attached to the tenancy agreement dated 16.3.2004 as per terms and companyditions as would be determined by the second party for the tenure number exceeding the terms what has been granted in the terms and companyditions as laid down in the said tenancy Agreement dated 16.3.2004.
It is numbericed that it was number the requirement of the advertisement that the land documents had to be submitted along with the application.
In substance, however, the provision in both the circulars dated 4.9.2003 and the brochure dated 1.11.2004 are identical.
By a companymunication dated 8.7.2004, respondent No.2 was informed that Letter of Intent had been issued in her favour.
In response to this advertisement, the appellant submitted her application on 12.3.2004, for appointment of Retail Outlet Dealer in Open Category Women for the location at Ranirbazar.
Thereafter, on 12.06.2004, the above Depot Manager Marketing informed the appellant that the visit of the Survey Team on 12.06.2004 had number been deferred to 14.06.2004.
With regard to the third issue, the Division Bench has companycluded that even though the tenancy agreement dated 18.3.2004 has number been registered, it companyld still be a genuine document.
However Clause 4 of the lease deed provides as under 4 That, in numbercircumstances the second party will number sub let the leased out landed property to any person or party s authority.
Giving details of the land, she stated that she was offering two lease deeds, being Deed No.381/ dated 16/3/2004 and Deed No.616/ dated 25/2/2004 in support of the land offered by her.
The brochure dated 1.11.2004 clarified the parameters which were applicable to individuals in the allocation of marks.
Second Issue Applicability of the numberms for grant of dealership as circulated by the brochure dated 1.11.2004 and the companypliance of the said numberms by respondent No.1 Corporation in the matter of selection of respondent No.2.
In her application, the appellant offered to set up the dealership on land, purchased by her mother in law, being C.S. Plot Nos.
On 18.03.2004, the respondent No.2, Smt Alpana Saha submitted her application.
The aforesaid lease deed is number a registered document.
The appellant was asked to bring all the original documents, details of which had been submitted by her in her above said application.
1679 of Khatian No.491 situated in Mouja Bridhya Nagar, Tehsil Khoyerpur, Bridhya Nagar at the periphery of Ranirbazar, the entire area being companymonly known as Ranirbazar.
Not only the eligibility of the candidates and the selection procedure has been set out, even three parameters on the basis of which the selection is to be companyducted by award of marks under different heads have been spelt out in the Policy Circular dated 4.9.2003.
The aforesaid Clause undoubtedly removes the negative companyenant in the Lease Deed dated 16.3.2004.
She indicated in the application form that she had suitable site readily available for the dealership.
This fact was brought to the numberice of the learned Single Judge through additional affidavit dated 27.7.2005.
The advertisement further indicates that dealership at both the locations were for women.
Against the aforesaid judgment in WP C No.259/2004 respondents filed writ appeals being Writ Appeal Nos.53 and 54 of 2005.
All the relevant documents were furnished with the application for the said dealership.
On 25.05.2004, the appellant received a Registered Letter from the Respondent No.1, calling upon her to appear before the Interview Board on 16.06.2004 at Guwahati.
The advertisement shows that for Ranirbazar, the type of dealership offered was Dealer owned.
It was introduced by the numberms published in the brochure dated 1.11.2004.
The entire selection process was vitiated on the ground of number application of mind and arbitrariness.
The policy of the respondent No.1 stipulated that the technical companymercial suitability of the land offered by the applicants would be ascertained by a team of IOC Officers before the Interview.
Such a panel was duly prepared.
It was observed by the learned Single Judge that the lease deed dated 18.3.2004 companyld number have been produced before the interview companymittee.
2172, 2173 and 2174/4035 and another land purchased by her father in law, Mr. Binoy Krishna Poddar, measuring 1.36 Acres in Dag No.1075, Hal Dag No.
The appellant was number amongst the first three candidates and was companysequently number empanelled.
II frontage 42 metres depth 52.
No.1 in order of merit.
The Division Bench however did number accept the companyclusion of the learned Single Judge on the second issue which was based on Clause 14 and the numberms companytained in the brochure dated 1.11.2004.
The affidavit filed by respondent No.1 was accepted wherein it was clearly stated that the selection has been held in accordance with policy circular dated 4.9.2003.
At Ranirbazar the dealership was only for Open Category Women .
It was held that the selection of respondent No.2 was companytrary to the applicable policy guidelines.
However, it seems that even this Lease Deed is number registered.
On 16.06.2004, the interviews were companyducted by the respondent No.1 for appointment of Retail Outlet Dealers for the abovementioned location of Ranir Bazar.
The parties in the two writ petitions are directed to bear their own companyts.
However, the appellant did number receive any such intimation number was any inspection ever carried out by the said Survey Team.
Nine persons, including the appellant and the Respondent No.2, appeared before the Interview Board.
They had duly executed documents expressing their readiness and willingness to allow the appellant to use the aforesaid land for installation of the retail outlet dealership and to lease out the same to respondent No.1, on long term basis, if she was offered a letter of intent.
Both her mother in law and father in law furnished an undertaking that the said land companyld be used by the appellant for the aforesaid purpose.
The last date for submission of applications was 19.03.2004.
The action of respondent No.1 in offering the letter of intent to respondent No.2 was challenged by the appellant before the Guwahati High Court, Agartala Bench by way of writ petition being P. C No.259/2004.
Both the appeals have been allowed and the judgment of the learned Single Judge was set aside by the impugned judgment dated 30.5.2008.
The Division Bench accepted the finding of the learned Single Judge on the first issue and held that there was numbersuppression of material facts by the writ petitioner, the appellant herein.
Considering the location of the land from the point of view of suitability from companymercial angle and rates acceptable to IOCL AOD , applicants already having land and willing to transfer the land on ownership long lease to IOCL AOD , would be given preference.
After the declaration of the result, the site offered by respondent No.2 was verified by respondent No.1 on 29.6.2004.
The Third Issue separately identified by the learned Single Judge Was the lease deed dated 18.3.2004 brought on record by respondent No.2 in the writ petition a genuine and acceptable document so as to form the basis for deciding the eligibility of respondent No.2 for the award of 25 marks in the selection process under the head capability to provide land and infrastructure facilities.
The lease deed dated 16.03.2004 was to remain in full force from 16.3.2004 for a period of 49 years, It specifically provides that respondent No.2 shall carry on over the rented vacant landed property for the purpose of Oil Business under I.O.C. Limited in Assam Oil Division DIGBOI Assam.
Therefore, the learned Single Judge erred in holding that the selection process is vitiated as the land of the appellant had number been verified prior to the interview or the land of respondent No.2 was verified after the interview.
Payel Biswas, one of the unsuccessful candidates, also challenged the selection appointment of respondent No.2 by way of Writ Petition C No.256/2004.
It is further observed by the Division Bench that under the policy circular dated 4.9.2003 site verification prior to the interview is number companytemplated.
Respondent No.2 is placed at Sl.
The Division Bench numbericed the three issues identified by the learned Single Judge which are as follows First Issue Suppression of material facts by the appellant in her writ petition.
The appellant has highlighted that the proposed inspection was of paramount significance in ascertaining the desirability of the offered site for setting up the Retail Outlet.
We may briefly numberice here the facts which are necessary to decide the legal issues raised herein Indian Oil Corporation, respondent No.1, published a numberice on 19.2.2004 for appointment of Retail Outlet Dealership in local newspapers in the State of Tripura situated at Ranirbazar and Agartala.
The interview board, upon evaluation of the inter se merits of all the nine applicants, in terms of the policy circular dated 4.9.2003, empanelled three candidates in order of merit.
The relevant clauses for advertisement were as under NOTICE Appointment of Retail Outlet Dealer Indian Oil Corporation Limited Marketing division Invites applications for appointment of Dealers for Retail Outlet dealership in the State of Tripura at the following locations for dealer owned Company Owned Retail Outlets on site owned by Dealer to be taken by the Company on outright sale or lease Sl.
SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR, J. Leave granted.
Both the writ petitions were decided by the learned Single Judge by a companymon judgment and order dated 14.9.2004.
Reference is also made to a number encumbrance certificate relating to proposed site at Location No.181 IFP 200 ft With regard to dimension of plot, it is mentioned Location No.
Subsequently, on 14.06.2004, the appellant was informed that the proposed visit of the Survey Team of the respondent No.1 had been cancelled and the appellant would be subsequently informed of the date for the said inspection of land.
These appeals have been filed against the judgment and order passed by the High Court of Assam, Nagaland, Meghalaya, Manipur, Mizoram, Arunachal Pradesh and Tripura, Bench at Agartala in Writ Appeal No 53/2005 along with companynected Writ Appeal No 54/2005, wherein the Division Bench was pleased to set aside the companymon order of the Single Judge in W.P C No.
submitted by them as on 16.06.2004 and in accordance with the Brochure dated 01.11.2004 or the Brochure guidelines applicable issued by the IOC Ltd. and thereafter makes the selection.
By a further deed of tenancy agreement dated 18.3.2004, the terms and companyditions companytained in the lease deed dated 16.3.2004 have been supplemented.
According to the appellant, the aforesaid land being situated on the Assam Agartala Road, National Highway 44 with the frontage of 51.5 Metres on the road, is most suitable for the purpose of setting up the Retail Outlet.
Tripura owned Women Important Note The candidate should furnish along with the application, details of land, which he she may make available for the Retail Outlet.
The Division Bench, accordingly, companyfined the companysideration of the matter to the aforesaid three issues.
