Accordingly, the appellants representation was held to be disposed off in companypliance of the order of the High Court dated 12.10.2006.
The relief of writ of mandamus has also been sought to direct the respondents for issuing a letter of intent to the appellant in pursuance of her selection dated 3.3.2006 for retail outlet dealership at Islam Nagar Bisauli Marg, and further to direct the respondents to issue necessary HSD and MSD for her retail outlet dealership.
and as such there was numberoccasion or requirement to submit the companysent letters of other companyowners when proposed land of appellants husband was in excess of the required land.
The Corporation after being satisfied with the location of the land, called the appellant for an interview vide letter dated 10.2.2006 and she appeared for the interview on 3.3.2006 before the selection companymittee companystituted by the respondent.
It was urged that the appellant has wrongly challenged the impugned orders as a violation of her fundamental rights.
It was further submitted that the order dated 27.7.2006 was passed after affording full opportunity of hearing to the appellant.
Thereafter, the team of the Corporation visited the appellants site and submitted its report to the office.
It was submitted that since the companysent letters of the companyowners of the land were number submitted along with the application form, the selection was rightly cancelled and 35 marks awarded to the appellant under the parameter of land and infrastructure facility was wrong and the same was rectified by awarding zero marks.
Aggrieved by the same, the appellant filed Writ Petition No.5199 of 2007 praying for a writ of certiorari to quash the orders dated 27.7.2006 and 26.12.2006.
Hence, the review order passed by the respondents is bad in law as the appellant was originally found to have fulfilled all the criteria for the land offered which was greater in area than the land required as per the rules and guidelines of the respondent Corporation.
She was awarded 35 marks under the head Land and Infrastructure.
The review companymittee, on a mere technicality, denied the appellant her right to the dealership, after it was previously declared that she was selected for the same.
After the interview, her name was on top of the results list and she was shown as selected.
56740 of 2006 praying for quashing of order dated 27.7.2006.
The appellant being aggrieved by the aforesaid orders has filed the present appeal, urging certain legal and factual grounds.
The learned companynsel for the respondent on the other hand, companytended that the appellant did number submit companyplete documents as required and failed to submit the companysent letters of the companyowners of the proposed land, as a result of which the selection of the appellant was cancelled by order dated 27.7.2006 and finally decided on 26.12.2006 as the appellant overlooked the document dated 10.2.2006 which demonstrated that all the documents were to be placed before the interview board.
We have heard the rival legal companytentions for the parties.
5199 of 2007 whereby the High Court dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant on the ground that the orders dated 27.7.2006 and 26.12.2006 passed by the respondents do number suffer from any infirmity, illegality or error in law and they are perfectly justified and in accordance with the guidelines prescribed in this regard and therefore the same do number require interference by the High Court.
The appellant was waiting for a letter of intent but then on 7.8.2006 she received a registered letter dated 27.7.2006 issued by the Deputy General Manager in charge North Zone, wherein it was mentioned that the respondents decided to set aside the entire interview and selection and called for a fresh interview to be companyducted.
It is evident that the documents the appellant provided at first were seen to be sufficient, and the fact that she chose to give some additional documents to buttress her application cannot be a ground to nullify her appointment, given that clause 14, Preference for applicants offering suitable land of the HPCL Guidelines for Selection of Retail Outlet Holders details that the land owned by the family members namely spouse unmarried children will also be companysidered subject to the companysent of the companycerned family member.
The appellant was initially found eligible and was called for the interview.
Since, in this case, the land was owned by her husband and father in law, she gave their companysent letters along with the application form within the due date.
but the appellant had proposed land of an area of 2980 sq.m.
After the interview, she was shown as selected and the visit to the land mentioned along with the application for the dealership was accepted as sufficient and 35 marks were awarded in that regard.
Subsequent to this, vide order dated 26.12.2006, the respondent Corporation companystituted a review companymittee and stated that the land held by the appellant is jointly held in her husbands name along with four others and companysent letter from her husband and his father have been obtained, but number from the other owners.
It was argued that the land map issued by the Consolidation Officer which was annexed by the appellant along with her application form, showing the plot in question, has been divided into three parts, out of which the middle part belongs to the appellant and that the husbands and father in laws companysent was there for the same and also, the land required was only 900 sq.m.
Prior to this, the appellant filed W.P No.
On the same day, a list was displayed on the numberice board in which the appellants name was first on the list and she was shown as selected.
Subsequently, it was changed to zero, as per clause 12 of the guidelines, on the ground that companysent letters of the companyowners were number submitted before the due date along with the application but much later and as per the said clause, numberaddition deletion or alteration will be permitted in the application once it is submitted.
The appellant got 35 marks awarded for Land and infrastructure as indicated in the letter dated 27.7.2006 but it was mentioned that the selection companymittee wrongly awarded 35 marks as zero marks should have been awarded for land because numberconsent was obtained from the owners of the land.
The companydition of submission of companysent letters of all companyowners of the land was part and parcel of the companyditions mentioned in the advertisement dated 20.7.2005, a mandatory requirement under Clause 14 of the dealership guidelines and it was apparent from paragraph 13 of the advertisement as well as in the application form itself.
The appellant also obtained the companysent letters from all the companyowners on 11.04.2006.
The High Court, vide order dated 12.10.2006, directed the appellant to file a fresh companyprehensive representation along with the certified companyy of the order as well as a companyplete companyy of the writ petition with all Annexures before the companycerned companypetent authority within two weeks from the date of the order and on such a representation being filed as stipulated, the companycerned companypetent authority shall decide the same within eight weeks of the receipt of the representation by means of a reasoned order.
Later, the respondents made an about turn and declared that she was ineligible as she had given the companysent letters of the companyowners after the due date and hence, the marks awarded under Land and Infrastructure were reduced to zero.
It was further argued that the order passed by the respondent number3 is bad in law as the High Court vide its order dated 12.10.2006 directed the companypetent authority of the Corporation to decide the representation of the appellant and number respondent number3.
Gopala Gowda J. Leave granted.
The present appeal arises out of the impugned judgment and order dated 21.07.2009 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in W.P. No.
The facts in brief are stated hereunder The Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited issued an advertisement in the newspaper Amar Ujala dated 20.7.2005 inviting applications for opening its retail outlet in the said location in the category of open W women by 22.8.2005, and in pursuance of the above advertisement, the appellant submitted an application on 18.8.2005 along with all the relevant documents and demand draft of Rs.1,000/ for grant of retail outlet.
