An effective resolution of the companytentious issues that have emerged from the arguments made on behalf of the rival parties would require specific numberice of the relevant documents brought on record by the parties at different stages of the proceedings before the High Court as well as this Court.
A summary of the essential facts is delineated hereinbelow The first respondent Corporation issued an advertisement dated 30.05.2010 for award of dealership of retail outlets in different locations including Areraj, East Champaran District in the State of Bihar.
No Letter of Intent had been granted to the appellant at that stage.
The High Court overlooked the same and did number companysider the effect thereof on the rights and entitlements of the respective parties.
By companymunications dated 11.07.2011 and 16.07.2011 the District Authority informed the Corporation that NOC cannot be granted on account of the fact that the land, on which outlet was proposed, was involved in Partition Suit No.7 of 2006.
After the learned Single Judge had decided the writ petition by ordering a fresh selection, an amendment application dated 17.10.2011 was filed in Partition Suit No.7 of 2006 for deletion of the land offered for the dealership from the purview of the suit.
On the basis of the applications received for grant of the dealership in question, a selection was held wherein the appellant was placed at Sl.
There is another letter on record dated 30.12.2011 from the District Magistrate to the Territory Manager Retail Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited in the matter of grant of NOC.
The dealership was to be offered to the most meritorious candidate after necessary field verification.
In fact, the learned Single Judge came to the further companyclusion that such failure on the part of the respondent No.7 amounted to suppression companycealment of relevant facts.
The Sub Divisional Officer sought the opinion of the Government Advocate and submitted a report dated 18.08.2011 recommending grant of NOC.
Aggrieved by the order dated 29.09.2011 passed by the learned Single Judge both the appellant and the respondent No.7 filed their respective Letters Patent Appeals.
It would be of some significance that the appellant was impleaded as defendant in the said suit on 04.02.2011 i.e. after 5 years of its institution and that too after the finalization of the select list merit panel by the Corporation.
The first was with regard to award of zero marks to the Respondent, against a maximum of four awardable under the head Fixed and Moveable Assets.
Contending that the findings of the learned Single Judge with regard to suppression companycealment had number been set aside by the Division Bench of the High Court in its order dated 16.05.2012, the respondent No.7 had moved SLP C No.28324 of 2012 against the aforesaid part of the order dated 16.05.2012.
By the aforesaid impugned order, the High Court has directed that the respondent No.7 herein who was placed at serial No.2 of the select list merit panel for award of dealership of retail outlet under the respondent No.1, i.e. M s. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd., be offered the said dealership after companypleting the process companytemplated under the selection procedure in force in the Corporation.
Aggrieved, the present appeals have been filed.
The companyplaint filed by the respondent No.7 was promptly answered by an order of rejection dated 28.01.2011 on the ground that the Technical Evaluation Committee in its report had found the land offered by the appellant suitable for development of the retail outlet and that the issue raised by the respondent in the objection companyplaint would be dealt with in the process of grant of No Objection Certificate NOC by the District Magistrate to whom a reference of the matter is required to be made.
No.1 with 78.04 marks whereas the respondent No.7 who had secured 77.75 marks was placed at Sl.
Aggrieved by the selection, the respondent No.7 filed a companyplaint dated 25.01.2011 before the Corporation raising a two fold grievance.
The Division Bench of the High Court by the impugned order dated 16.05.2012 substantially agreed with the findings recorded by the learned Single Judge in so far as both the parties are companycerned.
As numbere of the said documents are disputed and the authenticity genuineness thereof is number questioned, companysidering the relevance of the same to the subject matter, we are of the view that the facts unfolded by the said documents can be ignored only at the companyt of a fair adjudication of the lis between the parties.
In so far as the claim of the respondent No.7 with regard to award of marks is companycerned, the same was rejected on the ground that the respondent had number furnished any document in support of his title to the assets mentioned by him in his application.
An order of injunction to restrain the District Authority from issuing NOC was sought by the plaintiff in Partition Suit No.7 of 2006 which was refused by the learned Trial Court on 19.07.2011.
However, taking numbere of Clause 16 of the Norms i.e. Procedure For Selection Of Petrol Diesel Retail Outlet Dealers, the Bench took the view that once the appellant was found to be disentitled, the dealership should have been awarded to respondent No.7, he being, at serial No.2 of the merit list.
A learned Single Judge of the High Court by order dated 29.09.2011 took the view that in so far as award of marks to the respondent No.7 is companycerned numberfault can be found in the decision of the Corporation inasmuch as the respondent No.7 did number produce any document of title in respect of assets mentioned by him in his application for the dealership.
In the L.P.A. filed by the appellant, i.e. L.P.A. No.1845 of 2011 the amendment application for deletion of the land in question as well as the order dated 19.10.2011 of the learned Trial Court allowing the said amendment application were enclosed.
A grievance redressal mechanism is expressly laid down in the Norms.
The second grievance raised was that the land offered by the appellant was under litigation and was number immediately available for use of the retail outlet.
The numberms companytemplated issuance of a Letter of Intent LoI on the expiry of 30 days from the date of publication of the select list merit panel or till disposal of companyplaints, if any, with regard to the selection made by the Corporation.
Consequently, the learned Single Judge directed that the selection process be redone.
RANJAN GOGOI, J. Leave granted.
Consequential directions were issued by the Division Bench of the High Court.
These appeals are directed against the companymon judgment and order dated 16.05.2012 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Patna in Letters Patent Appeal Nos.1845 and 1916 of 2011.
Taking numbere of the aforesaid fact i.e. refusal of injunction, the District Authority, once again, sought for a report from the Sub Divisional Officer whether NOC can be granted.
After the selection for the dealership was finalized by the Corporation on 30.12.2010, a reference was made to the District Authority on 24.01.2011 for grant of NOC to enable the Corporation to apply for the necessary licence under the Petroleum Rules, 2002.
The SLP filed by the respondent No.7 was dismissed by this Court by order dated 05.10.2012.
Aggrieved by the rejection of his companyplaint, the respondent No.7 moved the High Court by means of a writ petition registered and numbered as W.J.C. No.6125 of 2011.
In so far as the present appellant is companycerned, the learned Single Judge came to the companyclusion that the requisite NOC from the District Magistrate in respect of the land offered by the appellant number having been granted, the Corporation cannot be expected to wait indefinitely.
The said amendment was allowed by the learned Trial Court on 19.10.2011.
It also appears that on 26.12.2011, on behalf of the Corporation, a reminder was issued to the District Authority for grant of the NOC applied for by the Corporation on 24.01.2011.
The selection was to be made in accordance with the numberms laid down by the Corporation and available in a booklet published on 15.09.2008 under the caption procedure for selection of petrol diesel retail outlet dealers hereinafter referred to as the Norms .
