S. Ravindra Bhat, CJ
1. The appellant is aggrieved by the rejection of his writ petition challenging the award of an LPG dealership to the 4th respondent. The appellant and
the 4th respondent had applied for award of LPG dealership, in response to an advertisement issued by the Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. (IOCL). The
procedure entails the conduct of a draw of lots. In terms of the stipulations, the desirous applicants had to offer lands; the IOCL would not scrutinize
the applications or even claim, ownership or title, but rather after the conduct of the draw of lots, IOCL was to examine and verify the correct
situation after thorough inspections. Apparently, during a field inspection, it was found that the lands, offered by the 4th respondent (22 KND) were
not suitable. In accordance with the standing guidelines, the successful applicant i.e. 4th respondent was allowed to substitute the land â€" which he
did, by offering alternative land within the village concerned (12 KND).
2. The present petitioner was aggrieved and had approached this Court on an earlier occasion, complaining of arbitrariness on the part of the IOCL;
that writ petition [S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4533/2018, Rakesh Kumar vs. Managing Director, IOCL] was allowed to be withdrawn on 05.10.2018,
permitting the appellant to take recourse of suitable remedies. At that point in time, the appellant’s grievance was that the patta, in respect of the
alternative land offered, was questionable. According to him, the documents relied upon by the 4th respondent were forged. This led to certain
revenue proceedings; IOCL was apparently notified about this by the appellant on 15.03.2018.
3. The IOCL proceeded to evaluate the suitability of the alternative land offered by the 4th respondent at 12 KND and awarded the dealership by
issuing a letter of intent (LOI) on 03.07.2018. Subsequently, the land was permitted to be substituted â€" in terms of Clause 2(b) of the guidelines (as
amended in 2016), which permitted substitution of lands after the grant of LOI which are better or more suitable or in case the dealer had a perfected
acquired title. This became a fresh cause of complaint by the appellant who approached this Court and filed a writ petition. This time he contended,
firstly, that when the LOI was awarded on 03.07.2018, as a matter of fact, the patta (for the alternative land) had been cancelled on 14.06.2018. It
was next contended that the substituted land under Clause 2(b) â€" to the extent that it sought to incorporate the 4th respondent’s brother’s
land, was impermissible and contrary to the IOCL guidelines. In this regard, learned counsel relied upon the definition of “family†to say that it did
not include a brother. Consequently, the inclusion of land owned by 4th respondent’s brother, violated guidelines. These contentions were negated
by the learned Single Judge.
4. Mr. Purohit, learned counsel for the appellant, undaunted by the two failures which the writ petitioner faced, argued that the guidelines were flouted
by IOCL, inasmuch as, it sought to favour the 4th respondent despite the cancellation of patta by the Revenue Appellate Authority on 14.06.2018. It
was submitted that the IOCL was well aware that the appellate proceedings were pending before the revenue authorities, which cast a cloud over the
patta and despite this it proceeded to favour the 4th respondent. This shows arbitrariness and bias on the part of the IOCL. Serious exception was also
taken to the inclusion of lands after the issue of LOI. It was contended by the appellant that this contravenes the guidelines with respect to award of
dealership which prohibited members of the same family to seek the same benefit.
5. This Court has considered the submissions. Both arguments urged on behalf of the appellant have no merit. So far as the cloud over the patta is
concerned, the IOCL concededly was not a party to the revenue proceedings. It was no doubt notified by the appellant about the pendency of such
proceedings, but IOCL was not notified about the cancellation of patta and therefore, while issuing or granting the LOI, consciously recorded about
pendency of the case. There is no material on record to suggest that on 03.07.2018, the appellant notified the IOCL about the cancellation of the patta.
It may be observed at this stage that the cancellation by the Revenue Appellate Authority was at the behest of the appellant. To continue the
narrative, the order of cancellation, was in fact recalled by the Panchayat on 10.08.2018 and the matter was remitted for fresh consideration and
subsequently the award of patta in favour of the 4th respondent was upheld. In these circumstances, the repeated arguments made by the appellant
before this Court â€" on the earlier occasion, in the subsequent petition and now before us, are nothing but some sort of malafide attempt on his part to
dislodge the successful appellant.
6. So far as the second objection with respect to violation of Clause 2(b) is concerned, the Court is of the opinion that there is no merit in this allegation
as well. Clause 2(b) affords a successful LOI holder, - after the award of the letter of intent, an opportunity to offer better lands, in case he or she
acquires title over it. The rationale is sound; IOCL naturally would prefer the dealership to be located on a piece of land owned by the distributor or
dealer rather on leased land as in the later event, there is always a possibility of eviction. The 4th respondent, therefore, offered another piece of land,
- in keeping with the guidelines. The appellant’s objection with respect to the lands being ineligible, inasmuch as, part of it was owned by his
brother, is entirely unmerited. The guidelines specifically deal with inclusion of other lands in a sub-heading known as ‘godown or showroom’.
Under this clause, there is a specific mention of several clauses of relatives, including parent, step-mother, step-father, grand-parents, brother or sister
etc. The reliance upon an earlier part of the guidelines which defines “familyâ€, in the opinion of this Court is entirely unmerited because that
definition is in the context of prohibition on the part of more than one member of the family applying for the same dealership.
7. This Court is of the opinion that the dispute sought to be urged is as if the appellant is aggrieved by violation of some civil rights. All that the law
affords the appellant or any other applicant in such cases i.e. award of dealership, contracts, or any other such largessees is a fair opportunity and
non-arbitrary evaluation. In the present case, there is no dispute that the appellant’s application was not successful in the draw of lots. His
repeated attempts are to somehow dislodge the 4th respondent, which in fact amounts to obstruction in the working of the public agency for the
benefit of the larger general public, is unwarranted. The present petition is the third attempt to dislodge a successful applicant.
8. For the above reasons, this Court holds that the appeal is without merit and it is accordingly dismissed with costs quantified at ₹75,000/- to be paid
to the respondents in equal parts within four weeks from today. All pending applications are disposed of.
