WRIT APPEAL NO. 340 OF 2011 - Gauhati High Courtghconline.gov.in/Judgment/WA3402011.pdf · WA...

WA 340/2011 of 43

IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (THE HIGH COURT OF ASSAM;NAGALAND;MEGHALAYA;MANIPUR;

TRIPURA; MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

WRIT APPEAL NO. 340 OF 2011

Smti. Bina Das, Wife of Sri Bokul Das, Of Kalibari Road, P.O.& P.S. Hojai,

Dist- Nagaon, Assam ......APPELLANT

-Versus-

1. Union of India,

Represented by the Secretary to the Government of India in the Ministry of

Petroleum and Natural Gas, New Delhi. 2. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd.

(A Government of India Enterprise) Having its registered office at Bharat Bhawan, 4 & 6 Currimbhoy Road.

3. The Territorial Manager,

Raiganj Territory (LPG) Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd., Panisalahat, Raiganj

Uttar Dinajpur-733134

4. Area Manager, Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd., Ananda Path, House No.1,

R.P. Road, Behind MLA Hostel, Dispur, Guwahati-6, Assam

5. Selection Committee, Represented by the Secretary,

C/O Territorial Manager, Raiganj Territory (LPG) Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd.,

Panisalahat, Raiganj Uttar Dinajpur-733134

6. Smti Shilpa Khakholia, Wife of Sri Naresh Agarwal,

Resident of JK Kedia Road, Hojai, Near LIC Branch Building, District- Nagaon, Assam ..... RESPONDENTS

WA 340/2011 of 43

P R E S E N T HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMITAVA ROY HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE P.K.MUSAHARY

For the appellant : Mr. PK Goswami, Mr. AC Borbora, Mr MK Choudhury,

Sr. Advocates Mr M Dutta,

Mr A Barkataki, Advocates

For the respondents : Mr SS Dey, Mr M Nath, Mr DP Borah,

Advocates Mr S Baruah,

Central Govt. Counsel Mr PJ Saikia,

Advocates Dates of hearing : 19.1.2012, 20.1.2012,

23.1.2012 & 24.1.2012

Date of judgment : 23.02.2012

JUDGMENT & ORDER

(CAV)

Amitava Roy, J

The award of LPG Distributorship at Hojai, District-

Nagaon under Open (Women) category made by the respondent

Corporation in her favour having been annulled by the judgment

and order dated 23.9.2011 rendered in WP(C) No. 1425/2011

instituted by the respondent No.6 herein, the appellant being

aggrieved, is in appeal.

WA 340/2011 of 43

2. By order dated 23.11.2011, notice had been issued in

the present appeal and after hearing the learned counsel for the

parties, as an interim measure, it had been directed that the

aforementioned settlement would not be interfered with.

3. We have heard Mr PK Goswami, Senior Advocate

assisted by Mr AC Borbora and Mr MK Choudhury, Senior

Advocates for the appellant; Mr S Baruah, learned Central Govt.

counsel for the respondent No.1; Mr PJ Saikia, Advocate for the

respondent Corporation and its office bearers and Mr SS Dey,

Advocate for the respondent No.6 ( writ petitioner).

4. A skeletal recitation of the rival pleadings would assist

better appreciation of the arguments made. In the narration to

follow Smt. Bina Das who had been impleaded as respondent No.6

in the writ petition would be referred to as the appellant and Smt.

Shilpa Khakolia, the writ petitioner as the respondent No.6.

4A. The respondent Corporation vide its advertisement

dated 1.12.2009 published in the English daily “The Assam

Tribune” solicited offers from eligible candidates, amongst others,

for the settlement of LPG Distributorship at Hojai, District—Nagaon

under OP(W) category. The respondent No.6 and the appellant

along with others offered their candidature and claimed to have

WA 340/2011 of 43

submitted the essential documents in terms of the advertisement

and other tender stipulations, whereafter, they were called for the

interview on 15.12.2010 which they attended. They have asserted

that all the originals of the essential documents were enclosed by

them with their applications extending their offer. On the very same

date i.e. 15.12.2010, at the end of the interview, a merit list was

prepared by the Selection Committee before which the candidates

had appeared and in the panel prepared in order of merit, the

respondent No.6, the appellant and one Nurur Nehar Choudhury

were placed inter-se as hereunder:

Sl. Name Total marks secured Position in the merit list.

_________________________________________________________________________ 28. Smt. Bina Das (appellant) 93.33 1st

12. Shilpa Khakolia (respondent No.6) 92.37 2nd

26. Nurur Nehar Choudhury 91 3rd

5. Referring to Clause-4.4 of the Brochure on Selection as

well as Clause-2(e) of the advertisement, the respondent No.6

asserted that as at the time of submitting her (appellant)

candidature her husband being a member of a “family unit” as

defined in Clause-4.4 had already entered into a Memorandum of

Understanding with STATFED on 20.7.2004 for operating LPG

WA 340/2011 of 43

Distributorship at Hojai for a period of 10 years, she was

disqualified from participating in the process and that her selection

for the impugned settlement is thus obviously invalid. Further, the

appellant having obtained the distributorship by furnishing wrong

informations as well as by suppressing correct facts, her

candidature in terms of Clause-4.5 of the said Brochure was liable

to be cancelled. The respondent No.6 also averred that the

appellant had offered the same plot of land, as required as per para

12 of the advertisement and para 9 of the Brochure, on which there

was a godown already provided by her husband for storage of LPG

cylinders of the IOC/ STATFED pursuant to the agreement dated

20.7.2004. Licence No. G/EC/AS/06/230 dated 9.3.2005 issued

by the Deputy Chief Controller of Explosives, Guwahati Sub-Circle

Office, Guwahati granted to the Branch Manager, STATFED, Hojai

Branch for possession of cylinders filled with compressed gas in the

said godown was also referred to by her to indicate the

identicalness of the land covered by Dag No. 183, Patta No.9,

Village/ Town- Hojai, P.S. Hojai, Nagaon on which the said godown

stood. According to the respondent No.6, thereby the appellant

suppressed the fact that the said land had already been allotted in

favour of the STATFED by her husband, thus, rendering her

candidature non-est. She also insisted that this land is covered by

annual patta and recorded in the name of one Sri Prafulla Singh,

son of Late Dayal Singh and Smt. Kotheloi Devi, wife of Late Dayal

WA 340/2011 of 43

Singh and that neither the appellant nor any member of her family

was the owner thereof though it had been mentioned in her

application that the said land would be utilized for the purpose of

godown for storage of LPG cylinders at Hojai. The respondent No.6,

thus, alleged suppression of material facts in this regard by the

appellant inspite whereof she had been selected.

6. Referring to Clause-14.2 of the Brochure pertaining to

allocation of marks on various parameters based on informations/

statements to be furnished/ made, the respondent No.6 claimed to

be the absolute owner of a plot of land measuring 8287.5 Sq. ft.

covered by Dag No. 928 and 361 of Periodic Patta No. 175 of Hojai

Town having valid title therein by virtue of a registered sale deed

No. 4395 dated 29.12.2009 which was produced before the

Selection Committee at the interview and for which she was

awarded 25 marks as contemplated. She avowed that the

appellant, however, did not furnish any registered sale/ lease/ gift

deed or evidence of mutation of any suitable land owned by her

with clear title therein before the Selection Committee at the

interview and, thus, was not entitled to 25 marks in that regard.

According to this respondent, the appellant, even if her candidature

inspite of the suppressions and mis-informations was

entertainable, she was entitled at the most to 18 marks on this

count. The respondent No.6 alleged that the Selection Committee,

WA 340/2011 of 43

however, gave a complete go-bye to the mandate of the stipulations

prescribed and illegally awarded 25 marks to the appellant and

adjudged her to be the most preferred candidate for the settlement

of LPG Distributorship at Hojai.

7. Adverting to Clause-14 and 14.2 of the Brochure

furnishing the guidelines for allocation of marks in respect of the

capacity to arrange finance, the respondent No.6 alleged that most

of the Fixed Deposit Receipts (for short, „FDR‟) annexed by the

appellant in her application were neither free nor unencumbered

not only on the date of the advertisement and the application but

thereafter also as those had been duly pledged with the Bank (s)

against the financial assistance availed of by “Ganesh Industries”

owned by her husband Bakul Das. According to her, the

documents including the FDRs in original were not produced by the

appellant at the interview but despite that she was awarded/

allocated 35 marks.

8. The respondent No.6 claimed to have relied upon free

and unencumbered FDRs and other documents to unassailably

establish her financial solvency, but she was awarded only 34.2

marks. She, therefore, alleged that the Selection Committee had

shown undue favour to the appellant. The respondent No.6 also

asseverated lack of any training of the appellant to conduct the

WA 340/2011 of 43

distributorship as required and claimed herself to be sufficiently

equipped in that regard, thus, projecting her to be a more suitable

candidate in comparison. Reiterating that the appellant‟s

candidature in terms of the stipulations contained in the

advertisement and the Brochure on Selection of Bharat Gas (LPG)

Distributors (also being referred to as „Brochure‟) was invalid in

view of the apparent false statements and suppression of relevant

facts in her application, the respondent No.6 contended that her

(appellant) selection is illegal, arbitrary and discriminatory in

violation of her (respondent No.6) legal and constitutional rights.

9. The respondent No.6/ writ petitioner in order to further

consolidate her stand, by an additional affidavit brought on record

a copy of the Licence No. G/EC/AS/06/230 (G) 16809 dated

9.3.2005 for permitting storage of gas in cylinders on a plot of land

under Dag No. 183, Patta No. 9, Village/ Town and Police Station

Hojai, District Nagaon. She provided as well the details of the Fixed

Deposit Receipts and the NSCs offered by the appellant which in

fact were encumbered having been pledged to the Bank as referred

to therein.

10. In their counter, the respondent Corporation and its

impleaded officers categorically denied that the appellant was not a

deserving candidate for selection for the settlement eventually

WA 340/2011 of 43

awarded to her. They asserted that the candidature of the

contending tenderers was correctly assessed and that the appellant

was rightly allotted the marks in terms of the tender stipulations.

The answering respondents denied the allegation of mis-

representation and/or suppression of material facts by the

appellant as well as the imputation of want of working experience

levelled by the respondent No.6/ writ petitioner. Detailing their

stand, they further averred that a Committee comprising of three

senior officials headed by the Deputy General Manager (LPG-

Strategy) Mumbai, Manager Marketing Services (Retail) Kolkata and

Territory Manager (LPG) Raiganj, who are experts in their fields,

had recommended candidates in order of preference on a

consideration of all relevant materials in connection therewith as

well as on their personal interview.

11. Apropos the allegation of ineligibility of the appellant on

the ground of subsisting distributorship of her husband Bakul Das,

the respondents asserted that on official enquiries made by them,

M/s IOCL vide their letter NEISCO/LPG/02/GEN dated 17.1.2011

confirmed that it does not have any distributor named Bakul Das

at Hojai. The answering respondents clarified that M/s Statfed

Indane Gas Agency had been commissioned under M/s STATFED,

an Assam Government enterprise which got dissolved after its

liquidation. That M/s IOCL has confirmed as well that the Statfed

WA 340/2011 of 43

Indane Gas Agency at Hojai stood terminated after liquidation of

STATFED was highlighted as well.

12. Referring to the application filed by the appellant

seeking the distributorship, the respondent Corporation averred

that therein she had disclosed that she owns under the „family unit‟

three lands. It was stated further that apart from the land alleged

to be encumbered and belonging to her husband, she offered two

other plots which were found to be suitable for setting up a LPG

godown and resultantly, the Letter of Intent dated 21.2.2011 was

issued to her with instructions to make available the LPG godown

in the selected plot of land measuring 27 mtrs. X 26.12 mtrs. for

storing LPG cylinders. Reiterating that the selection had been made

in a fair and transparent manner, the respondents maintained that

during field verification the land offered by the appellant at Dag No.

717 Patta No. 213, Mouza Lanka was found to be suitable and,

accordingly, she was advised to get necessary statutory approvals

following which she obtained a No Objection Certificate from the

office of Bhalukmari Gaon Panchayat on 22.2.2011. That

consequent upon scarcity of supply of LPG cylinders at Hojai and

surrounding areas due to the then impending elections, the Sub

Divisional Magistrate, Hojai, Sankardevnagar on behalf of the

District Administration vide letter No. HJS 17/2011/20 dated

28.2.2011 had issued thereby a “NOC” for storage and sale of LPG

WA 340/2011 of 43

cylinders from the existing godown situated on the plot of land

under Dag No. 183 Annual Patta No.9 of village Dakhin

Golaghatiabasti, Hojai till the completion of construction of the new

godown was underlined. The respondents stated that thereafter the

Corporation issued a letter Ref. RT/LPG/LOI/HOJAI dated

1.3.2011 instructing her to get the explosives licence of the existing

LPG godown revalidated/ changed in her name. The respondents

further stated that in response to this communication, the

appellant by her letter dated 2.3.2011 agreed to complete the

construction of the new godown on the plot covered by Dag No.

713, Patta No. 213 as instructed.

13. Elaborating further the respondents maintained that

the Deputy Chief Controller of Explosives vide letter Ref

G/EC/AS/06/230 (G 16809) dated 4.3.2011 thereafter transferred

the old licence in favour of the appellant upto 30.9.2013,

whereafter, the District Administration directed the Corporation to

release LPG cylinders to M/s Baba Ganesh Bharat Gas Service,

Hojai, a proprietorship firm of the appellant. The respondents

affirmed that the appellant also did take steps in obtaining selling/

trade licence, VAT registration etc. in her name for commissioning

of LPG distributorship at Hojai. That the respondent Corporation

had issued Letter of Appointment Ref. RT:LPG:Hozai dated

12.3.2011, whereafter, the distributorship was commissioned on

WA 340/2011 of 43

14.3.23011 under the name and style M/s Baba Ganesh Bharat

Gas Service, Hojai was asserted as well.

14. Vis-a-vis the standoff on the facet of financial capability,

the respondent Corporation clarified that in her application, the

appellant declared to be possessed of funds amounting to Rs.

31,72,371.00 with the following break-up:

Savings Bank Accounts - Rs. 14,16,581.00

FDs/ NSCs etc. - Rs. 17,55,790.00

TOTAL - Rs. 31,72,371.00

The respondents clarified that at the interview the

appellant could not produce some of the original FDs, NSCs and

KVPs for which those were rejected outright and on fresh

computation on the basis of the remaining documents/ records,

her financial capability was assessed to be of Rs. 22,91,533.00 as

hereunder:

Savings Bank Accounts - Rs. 14,16,581.00

FDs/ NSCs etc. - Rs. 8,74,952.00

TOTAL - Rs. 22,91,533.00

According to the respondents, in terms of the relevant

Clause of the Brochure, available funds at the disposal of the

appellant being above Rs. 20 Lakhs, she was awarded 30 marks.

WA 340/2011 of 43

15. The answering respondents denied the imputation that

all the FDs/ NSCs of the appellant were encumbered. While

refuting the allegation of want of working experience of the

appellant, the answering respondents also controverted the charge

that the certificates produced by her to that effect were false, the

same having been affirmed to be authentic by the issuing authority.

While reiterating that the selection of the appellant had been made

in a fair and transparent manner, the respondents asserted as well

that she had obtained the necessary permission to store and

supply LPG cylinders from the then existing temporary godown on

the plot in Dag No. 183 Patta No. 9, Hojai and that her

distributorship has been catering to approximately 800 customers

of the locality.

16. The appellant in her affidavit averred as well that

though her husband had at some point of time entered into a

Memorandum of Understanding with STATFED and pursuant

thereto had executed a lease deed with regard to a plot of land

measuring 4200 Sq. ft. at Dakhin Golaghatia Basti Kisamat covered

by Patta No. 9 and Dag No. 183 for being used by the STATFED for

its LPG distributorship, pursuant to the cancellation of its

(STATFED) registration in the year 2006, it (STATFED) vide letter

dated 16.6.2006 had withdrawn the lease deed. Thereby the

WA 340/2011 of 43

STATFED had informed her husband as well that the land and the

LPG storage godown thereon was no longer required by it. That her

husband at no point of time had been holding any dealership/

distributorship or LOI therefor under the IOC or any other PSU Oil

Company was also affirmed. She confirmed to have offered three

plots of land including the one under Dag No.183 Patta No.9 under

Hojai Mouza and insisted that the eventual selection of the plot

covered by Dag No. 713 and included in Patta No. 213, Mouza

Lanka did not suffer from any infirmity and that she was validly

awarded marks on this segment of her candidature in terms of the

tender norms.

17. While claiming that the Fixed Deposit Receipts

furnished by her were free from encumbrance, the appellant

asserted as well that she was possessed of the necessary

experience required for administering the distributorship in

question. She denied as well the allegation of falsity of the

certificates to the effect of her experience in such an enterprise.

She stoutly denied the allegation of misinformation,

misrepresentation and suppression of facts and questioned the

bonafide of the challenge and contended further that the

respondent No.6/ writ petitioner having participated in the process,

it was impermissible for her to turn around and question the

validity thereof.

WA 340/2011 of 43

18. Responding to the additional affidavit filed by the

respondent No.6/ writ petitioner, she reiterated that Licence No.

G/EC/AS/06/230 (G 16809) which stood initially in the name of

the Branch Manager, STATFED, Hojai Branch was last renewed in

favour of the said licencee on 21/22.9.2010 for a period of three

years. As on the necessary instructions from the District

Administration/ Corporation she had applied for the transfer

thereof in her name, the Deputy Chief Controller of Explosives vide

his communication dated 4.3.2011 acceded to the said request.

She, therefore, maintained that the said licence had not been

granted to her on 9.3.2005 as was sought to be projected by the

respondent No.6/ writ petitioner.

19. She avowed as well that there was no requirement in

the advertisement dated 1.12.2009 under the heading “Capability

to provide Finance” to the effect that the Fixed Deposit/ NSC/ KVP

etc. to be offered should not be pledged/charged with any one. That

she was rightly awarded marks on this count was iterated as well.

Vis-à-vis the selection of the land for setting up of the godown for

the distributorship, apart from reaffirming her stand in her original

pleadings, she asserted that all documents in connection with the

said plot of land offered by her had been verified by the Corporation

through the Circle Officer and Sub-Registrar, Hojai and Lanka.

That she had submitted an application to the Joint Chief Controller

WA 340/2011 of 43

of Explosives on 3.4.2011 seeking approval for construction of LPG

storage godown on the land selected by the Corporation was

mentioned as well.

20. By an additional affidavit the appellant has also brought

on record that on 19.8.2011 her godown has been shifted to the

plot bearing Dag No. 713 Patta No. 73 (old)/213 (new) of Village

Pamgaon (Sankar Basti), District- Nagaon which was preceded by

grant of licence by the Controller of Explosives, Government of

India on 9.8.2011. That prior thereto, with due approval of the

concerned authorities, her distributorship had started functioning

in the existing godown on the land bearing Dag No. 183 located at

Dakhin Golaghatiabasti Village, Hojai was underlined.

21. The affidavits-in-reply of the respondent No.6/ writ

petitioner are/is substantial reiteration and reaffirmation of her

earlier pleaded averments and, thus, for the sake of brevity do not

warrant dilation thereof.

22. In the backdrop of the contentious pleadings outlined

hereinabove, Mr Goswami has persuasively argued that the

impugned judgment and order suffers from an apparent

misappreciation of the underlying purport of the essential

stipulations governing the tender process and this having vitiated

the same to its core, it is liable to be interfered with in the interest

WA 340/2011 of 43

of justice. Maintaining that the plea of disqualification of the

appellant in terms of Clause-4.5 of the Brochure on the ground

that at the relevant point of time her husband held a

distributorship under another PSU Oil Company vis-à-vis the

godown on the land covered by Dag No. 183 Patta No.9,

Village/Town-Hojai, P.S. Hojai, Nagaon had been rightly rejected by

the learned Single Judge and that in absence of any appeal

therefrom it is impermissible to reopen the same, the learned senior

counsel has argued that Clause-13 (A1) of the Brochure was clearly

comprised of two parts i.e. of godown and land, the two units being

distinctly independent of each other leaving it to the willing

tenderer to offer these together or in the alternative in compliance

of the requirements engrafted therein.

23. Mr Goswami urged that it was accordingly that the

appellant offered the godown situated on the land under Dag No.

183 Patta No.9, Village/Town-Hojai, P.S. Hojai, Nagaon as well as

two other plots of land in the alternative for the consideration of the

respondent Corporation in support of her candidature. Contending

that the reference of a registered document vis-à-vis the land on

which the godown existed was at best an inaccurate statement, the

appellant being a lady uninformed of the legalese, the same by no

means did amount to any deliberate misrepresentation and/or

suppression of facts entailing invalidation of her offer as a whole.

WA 340/2011 of 43

Even otherwise, as following a scrutiny of the relevant documents/

records produced in original by the appellant at the interview and

spot verification of the sites offered by her, the respondent

Corporation being satisfied that her tender was in strict compliance

of the criteria prescribed, awarded the distributorship to her, the

plea of misrepresentation/ suppression of material facts to mislead

it (respondent Corporation) is wholly misplaced, he urged. As the

plot offered by the appellant covered by Dag No. 717 (ought to be

Dag No. 717) Patta No. 213, Mouza Lanka was selected by the

respondent Corporation as found to be suitable for the

distributorship, reference of a registered deed vis-à-vis the land on

which the godown existed is of no consequence, he argued. Vis-à-

vis the aspect of financial capability of the candidates, the learned

senior counsel pleaded that the respondent Corporation having

rejected the Fixed Deposit Receipts etc. found by it to be

encumbered and as on computation of the resources at her

disposal sans the same was assessed to be adequate for her

suitability judged by the relevant covenants of the Brochure, the

learned Single Judge had erred in observing that on this count as

well her offer ought to have been rejected being afflicted by the vice

of misrepresentation/ suppression of facts. As verification of the

original documents/ records in support of the disclosures made in

the tender was an essential and integral segment of the selection

process, the concerned authorities of the Corporation as experts in

WA 340/2011 of 43

the field of the business involved were satisfied on her adherence to

the essential prescriptions of the Brochure and thus the challenge

to her candidature as made is wholly untenable in law warranting

interference with the impugned judgment and order, he pleaded.

Mr Goswami maintained that as the appellant had disclosed all her

documents in endorsement of the informations furnished in her

tender and that those produced in original in the interview had

been duly verified by the concerned authorities of the respondent

Corporation for their satisfaction about the authenticity and

sufficiency thereof, the plea that it (respondent Corporation) was

misled to award the settlement is wholly misconceived. According

to Mr Goswami, having regard to the disclosures made by the

appellant in her tender as well as the documents/ records

produced by her at the interview which stood reinforced, amongst

others, by the findings on the spot verification by the officials of the

respondent Corporation, she was rightly awarded the marks on all

counts and, thus, the settlement in her favour as the most suitable

candidate is unassailable in law and on facts. The learned senior

counsel argued that the stipulations contained in the

advertisement as well as the Brochure spelling rejection of the

tender or cancellation of the award, as the case may be, have to be

essentially construed as a whole and not in isolation and as in the

instant case the respondent Corporation had consciously awarded

the settlement to the appellant on a rigorous scrutiny of her tender,

WA 340/2011 of 43

the allegation of undue favour to her is unfounded. In the

attendant facts and circumstances, it would also be wholly

inexpedient and unwarranted for this Court to hazard a guess that

the respondent Corporation had been deliberately misled by the

appellant to procure the distributorship, he maintained.

24. Referring to the official communication made with the

appellant inter alia by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Hojai

permitting temporary storage and sale of the commodity involved

at/ from the godown situated on the land under Dag No. 183 Patta

No.9, Village/Town-Hojai, P.S. Hojai, Nagaon and the consequential

steps taken by her from time to time including transfer of the

explosives‟ licence in her favour duly granted by the concerned

authorities, Mr Goswami has urged that the contextual facts do not

disclose any gross failure of justice warranting interference of this

Court in exercise of its power of judicial review. To endorse his

pleas, he has placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in

Tata Cellular –vs- Union of India & Ors., (1994) 6 SCC 651.

25. In reply, Mr Dey has urged that in a public participatory

process of the type in hand unflinching observance of the

stipulations prescribed therefor is an indispensable imperative and

as admittedly the appellant‟s tender failed in many aspects to

conform to this essentiality, the learned Single Judge did rightly

WA 340/2011 of 43

interfere with the settlement awarded in her favour. Profusely

referring to the various clauses of the advertisement and the

Brochure in support of his above proposition, the learned counsel

insisted that the appellant‟s statement in her tender about the

registered document vis-à-vis the godown and/or the land covered

by Dag No. 183 Patta No.9, Village/Town-Hojai, P.S. Hojai, Nagaon

per se rendered the same invalid. According to Mr Dey, an

uncompromising compliance of the tender stipulations is decisively

significant in view of the marks allotable to the candidates under

the different heads so much so that any flexibility in approach

would unduly tilt the balance in favour of one, though undeserving,

to his/her advantage. Mr Dey urged that the respondent

Corporation, amongst others, has not disclosed as to why inspite of

the apparent contraventions of the tender norms by the appellant,

it had purportedly selected the land covered by Dag No. 717 Patta

No. 213 (admittedly mistaken) and had awarded maximum marks

to her on that count.

26. The learned counsel argued that the respondent

Corporation being a public authority, it was obliged to reveal the

factors that had weighed with it to adopt that course and it having

failed to do so, the selection process is marred by lack of

transparency. To demonstrate the instance of the predetermined

mind of the Corporation in favour of the appellant, the learned

WA 340/2011 of 43

counsel referred to the Letter of Intent dated 21.2.2011 to contend

that though she (appellant) had not offered any plot of land

measuring 27 mtrs. x 26.15 mtrs., reference thereof has been made

in that document urging upon her (appellant) to make it available

for the LPG godown and, that too, before conducting any field

verification to ascertain the availability thereof. As the

informations furnished by the appellant had the potential of

misleading the respondent Corporation, her tender ought to have

been cancelled at the threshold. The approach of the respondent

Corporation in deviation of the professed norms had rendered the

process void, he urged. Adverting to the aspect of financial

capability, Mr Dey maintained that though required, the appellant

could not produce the originals of all the documents mentioned by

her in her tender. Further, both on the date of submission of her

tender as well as the interview most of the documents in support of

her claim of financial soundness had been pledged and/or

encumbered, thus, entailing automatic rejection thereof. That the

materials on record do not reveal the considerations that had

weighed with the Selection Committee to handpick the appellant by

overlooking all these violations reducing the process to a farce was

underlined by him as well.

27. Mr Goswami in his response contended that in absence

of any factual assertion of bias, it would be impermissible in the

WA 340/2011 of 43

face of the recorded facts to impute the same vis-à-vis the

Corporation in favour of the appellant. Referring to the

communication whereby the respondent No.6 had been called for

the interview, the learned senior counsel urged that it would be

apparent therefrom that she as well had not produced certain

documents though strictly required by the Brochure and that,

therefore, the remonstrance qua the appellant on this count is

wholly untenable. Mr Goswami insisted that the rejection of the

tender or cancellation of the award on a correct interpretation of

the tender stipulations would ensue only if after verification/

scrutiny of all essential facts/ documents the necessary

informations are found to be false and deliberately made to secure

undue advantage therefrom.

28. Mr Saikia appearing for the respondent Corporation

while generally endorsing its decision to settle the distributorship

with the appellant has produced the relevant records in support

thereof.

29. We have carefully analyzed the matrix of the pleadings

traversed as above and have duly extended our thoughtful

consideration to the competing arguments. The primary facts

pertaining to the participation of the parties in the fray in response

to the advertisement dated 1.12.2009 for earning the

WA 340/2011 of 43

distributorship involved are matters of record. The relevant

stipulations in the advertisement initiating the process detail,

amongst others, the eligibility criteria of the candidates, the norms

of evaluation of their suitability and the informations inter alia vis-

à-vis their capability to provide infrastructure as well as finance

under the heads as specified therein. The advertisement disclosed

that the distributor was to be selected on the basis of evaluation of

the parameters prescribed including the capability to provide

infrastructure facilities and finance.

30. Clause-16 of the said document clarified that only those

documents as are sought in the application format should be

submitted along therewith. Sub-clause (g) thereof was to the effect

that any statement made in the application or in the documents

enclosed therewith or subsequently submitted if found to be

incorrect or false, the same (application) would be liable to be

rejected without assigning any reason and in case the applicant

had been appointed as a distributor, the distributorship also would

be liable to be terminated. Sub-clause (h) required that the

application should provide only that information against various

items of the application for which the tenderers were in possession

of the supporting documents in original as on the date of

submission of the application and that the failure to present those

WA 340/2011 of 43

in original at the time of verification would result in cancellation of

the selection.

31. The essential inputs vis-à-vis the capability to provide

infrastructure were enumerated in Clause-13. Clause 13 A dealt

with the Godown for Storage of LPG Cylinders with three sub-

clauses relatable thereto. Under Clause 13 (A1) an intending

tenderer was required to respond to the query as to whether she

had a suitable plot of land at or within 15 kms. from the advertised

location for LPG godown or LPG godown readily available Owned/

Leased (15 yrs. Minimum) in her own name or in the name of any

member of her „Family Unit‟. The candidate concerned was also

required to provide the details as enumerated under Clause 13 (A1)

in a notorised affidavit in the format as in Annexure-C. The

dimensions of the area under Clause-13 (A1) was prescribed to be

27 mtrs. x 26.15 mtrs. in the minimum with the caution that no

mark would be awarded in case the same was either less or not

mentioned. Similarly, while responding to Clause-13(A1) the

dimensions of the plot of land offered for the proposed godown were

also to be essentially disclosed.

32. The details of the informations vis-à-vis the capability to

arrange finance were set out under Clause-14 with five sub-heads,

namely, 14.1, 14.2, 14.3, 14.4 and 14.5. Whereas Clause-14.1

WA 340/2011 of 43

pertained to the Gross Annual Income of Last Financial Year,

Clause-14.2 and 14.3 referred to the credit balance in the

tenderers‟ savings bank account and Fixed Deposits/ NSCs/

Shares/ MF etc. respectively. The tenderer was required as well to

attach an affidavit in the format as in Annexure-C so far the

documents of financial soundness were concerned. The note under

Clause-14 specified that marks would be awarded to the applicant

on the capability to arrange finance based on the information given

as sought for and if on verification the information was found to be

incorrect/ false/ misrepresented, then her candidature would

stand cancelled and she would be rendered ineligible for the LPG

distributorship.

33. An applicant under Clause-16 was also required to

furnish a declaration to the effect that if any information furnished

by her was on verification found to be incorrect/ false/

misrepresented, then her candidature would stand cancelled and

she would be liable to be adjudged ineligible for the distributorship.

Thereby, the candidate was also required to confirm that she was

in possession of the supporting documents in original in support of

the information furnished by her and that on selection, her failure

to present those in original would entail cancellation thereof

(selection) for submission of false/ unsupported information. In all

the formats of the notirized affidavit, a clause was incorporated

WA 340/2011 of 43

leaving the respondent Corporation at liberty and within its rights

to withdraw the Letter of Intent/ terminate the distributorship if

already appointed, in case any information/ declaration given by

the candidate in her application or in any document submitted by

her in support thereof or in the affidavit was found to be untrue,

incorrect or false.

34. The general instructions integrated in the advertisement

and meant for the candidates in substance reiterated the above.

The note appearing under Clause-15 under this head required in

particular that the applicant should provide only that information

in the application against various items for which she was in

possession of the supporting documents in original as on the date

of submission thereof and clarified that failure to present these in

original at the time of verification could result in cancellation of the

selection.

35. Clause-4.5 of the Brochure dealt with the aspect of

disqualification of a candidate. This clause enumerated the

different forms of ineligibility as extracted hereinbelow:

“4.5 DISQUALIFICATION : The following are not eligible.

(a) Persons convicted or against whom charges have been

framed by a court of law for any criminal offence

involving moral turpitude/ economic offences (other than

freedom struggle)

WA 340/2011 of 43

(b) Totally paralysed, mentally unsound and Totally Blind

persons.

(c) Signatory to agreement of a distributorship/ dealership

of any oil company terminated on the grounds of

adulteration/ malpractice in the past.

(d) If any person is allotted the distributorship by giving

wrong information or by suppression of information, it

shall be cancelled.”.

36. Whereas Clause-13 of the Brochure contemplated an

interview only of the eligible candidates with the original

documents by the Selection Committee comprised of three officials

of the Corporation, Clause-14.2 detailed the manner of distribution

of marks against the different parameters of evaluation. Field

verification under Clause-16 was envisaged vis-à-vis the first

candidate in the merit panel. Cancellation of the allotment and

termination of the distributorship, if commissioned, on the event of

detection of falsity of any information furnished by the applicant

before or after her appointment as dealer was reiterated under

Clause -23. The respondent Corporation, however, reserved its

residuary power under Clause-25 for according any clarification or

interpretation to the contents provided in the Brochure.

37. The application submitted by the appellant disclosed

that in response to Clause-13 (A1) she offered three options in the

alternative as hereunder:

WA 340/2011 of 43

i) Land of an area 38 mtrs. X 33 mtrs. covered by

Dag No. 183, Patta No.9 Kisab Golaghatia, Mouza-Hojai

with a godown of 8000 kg capacity LPG storage. This

plot was mentioned to be located 2 Kms. away from the

Hojai P.S. and was declared to be owned by Sri Bokul

Das, her husband vide registered sale deed dated

10.4.94.

ii) A plot of land measuring 40 mtrs. x 160 mtrs.

contained in Dag No. 20 and included in Patta No. 11

Kisab Udaipur, Mouza- Hojai which was stated to be

located at a distance of 5 kms. from Hojai P.S. and

owned as well by Sri Bakul Das, her husband vide

registered sale deed dated 16.11.2005.

iii) A plot of land measuring 91 mtrs. x 35 mtrs.

situated 5.5. kms. away from Hojai Town covered by

Dag No. 717 and included in Patta No. 213 Mouza-

Lanka owned by her vide registered sale deed dated

5.4.2007.

38. Vis-à-vis Clause-14 on the capacity to arrange finance,

the appellant provided the particulars of her savings bank account

at Hojai in her name as well as held by her husband, Bakul Das

disclosing a total deposit of Rs. 14,16,581/- only. The particulars of

56 documents of investment in the nature of FDs/NSCs/Shares/

MF etc. were also furnished to claim a wherewithal of Rs.

18,18,051/-. Other informations with regard to immovable assets/

family property were also furnished. She duly signed, amongst

others, the declaration in the form alluded hereinabove certifying

WA 340/2011 of 43

that the inputs provided by her are true and correct and that any

wrong information/ misrepresentation/ suppression of facts would

make her ineligible for the distributorship.

39. Noticeably, though the plea of disqualification of the

appellant on the ground that her husband at the relevant time held

a distributorship under the Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. in terms of

Clause-2(e) of the advertisement had been insisted upon to nix the

settlement in her favour, the learned Single Judge on a due

consideration of the relevant materials had rejected the same.

Neither any appeal has been preferred by the present respondent

No.6 against the said finding, nor any argument on this count has

been advanced in the instant appeal. In this view of the matter, we

consider it inessential to dilate on this aspect of the debate. Suffice

it to mention that on a plain perusal of the documents available on

record, the conclusion of the learned Single Judge against the grant

of any dealership/ distributorship to the appellant‟s husband

invalidating her candidature does not require either a review

thereof or interference therewith.

40. The impugned judgment and order reveals that on the

imputation of misrepresentation/ suppression of material facts, the

following failings/ omissions were noticed by the learned Single

Judge:-

WA 340/2011 of 43

a) The appellant had produced certain unregistered

documents permitting occupation of her husband of the

land covered by Dag No. 183, Patta No.9 and that

apparently there was no registered sale/ lease deed. No

land measuring 27 mtrs. x 26.15 mtrs. had been offered

by her for making available the LPG godown thereon.

b) The writ petition filed by her husband challenging

the order of the Indian Oil Corporation terminating the

LPH distributorship with STATFED had been withdrawn

by him only on 22.3.2011 i.e. two days after the Letter

of Intent dated 21.2.22011 had been issued in her

favour.

c) From the list of FDs/ NSCs/ Shares/ MF etc.,

eleven NSCs and five FD certificates were detected to be

encumbered and that she had failed to produce the

originals of such certificates at the time of verification.

This was notwithstanding her emphatic assertion that

the FDs listed by her were free from encumbrances.

41. While observing that whether the appellant inspite of

these anomalies could be awarded the highest mark was not a

relevant consideration, the learned Single Judge ruled that correct

disclosure of fact was a pre-requisite signifying that the

informations and disclosures made must be informed with due

sanctity. That in the facts and circumstances it appeared that the

respondent Corporation had glossed over the wrong informations

provided by the appellant was recorded. The process was, thus,

held to be vitiated for want of fairness and transparency.

WA 340/2011 of 43

42. That neither the advertisement nor the application in

the format prescribed debarred the intending candidates from

offering land/ land with or without godown in the alternative under

Clause-13A(1) is an accepted proposition. As adverted to

hereinabove, the appellant had conveyed three options in the

alternative. It has not been seriously disputed on her behalf that

though the name of the owner of the land/ lease-holder against the

plot covered by Datg No. 183, Patta No.9 with a standing godown

thereon was disclosed in the application to be Sri Bakul Das, her

husband through a registered sale/gift/ lease deed dated 10.4.94,

the said document was an unregistered one. A copy of the certified

copy of the Jamabandi of the annual patta land for the year 1968-

69 for the surveyed villages under Mouza Hojai available on record

revealed as per the entry dated 13.5.97 that Sri Prafulla Singh, son

of Late Dayal Singh and Smt. Kathaeli Devi, wife of Late Dayal

Singh had been mutated as the pattadar of Annual Patta No.9, Dag

No. 183 by inheritance. Having regard to the different remarks vis-

à-vis the entries made in this document, nothing much turns

thereon as on date. The fact that no registered sale/ gift/ lease

deed dated 10.4.94 could be furnished by the appellant vis-à-vis

this plot of land is, however, undeniable.

WA 340/2011 of 43

43. Though in course of the arguments the incongruency

qua the Dag number of the 3rd plot also surfaced, it transpired on a

perusal of the contemporaneous documents later in point of time

that it was plainly a typographical mistake as the figure „717‟

quoted in the appellant‟s application ought to have been „713‟. No

mistake in the identity of this plot subsisted at any point of time to

misguide the respondent Corporation and/or its functionaries

involved in the process of selection.

44. As the original records pertaining to the selection would

reveal, after the interview of the candidates was held on

25.11.2010, in course of which the relevant documents in original

as produced by them were scrutinized by the Selection Committee

comprised of high ranking authorities of the Corporation, field

verification was conducted by its (Corporation) authorized officials

who vide their reports, amongst others, on the aspect of

infrastructure and financial capability endorsed the authenticity of

the documents of the appellant and the informations contained

therein following which, acting on the recommendation dated

17.2.2011 on the basis thereof, the Letter of Intent was issued in

her favour.

45. The field verification of the credentials concerning the

appellant disclosed that the land measuring 91 mtrs. x 35 mtrs.

WA 340/2011 of 43

covered by Dag No. 713 and included in Patta No. 213 was

recommended to be suitable for construction of LPG godown. Not

only did the verification team clarified that Dag No. 717 mentioned

in the appellant‟s application ought to be 713 and that the

authenticity of the essential particulars of the plot had also been

verified from the Circle Officer, Lanka Revenue Circle, it

(verification team) recorded its finding on her ownership thereof as

well. In the note put up before the concerned authority of the

Corporation on a due analysis of the verification report, it was

indicated further that the land covered by Dag No. 183 and

included in Patta No. 9 was under the possession of her husband.

To this effect, is significant as well, the certificate of the President,

Bhalukmari Gaon Panchayat dated 22.2.2011 certifying that the

appellant is the owner of the periodic patta land at Pamgaon village

bearing Dag No. 713 and Patta No. 73 (old)/ 213 (new) under

Revenue Circle-Lanka.

46. The Letter of Intent was accordingly issued to the

appellant. It was thereafter that the Sub-Divisional Magistrate,

Hojai, Sankardevnagar by his letter dated 28.2.2011, in response to

the request made by the appellant for issuance of „No Objection

Certificate‟ for construction of new godown on the selected plot

covered by Dag No. 713 and Patta No. 213, informed the Territory

Manager of the Corporation that in the wake of LPG scarcity in

WA 340/2011 of 43

Hojai in view of the impending elections she had been allowed to

store and sell LPG cylinders from the existing godown of her

husband situated on the land covered by Dag No. 183, Patta No. 9

of Village Dakhin Golaghatiabasti till completion of the

construction of the new godown. The Corporation on its turn, by

the letter dated 1.3.2011 required the appellant to get the

explosives‟ licence of the existing LPG godown revalidated/ changed

in her name and to submit the same to it. She was thereby also

required to complete the construction of the new LPG godown as

per the specified standards in conformity with the Letter of Intent

issued to her.

47. In compliance of the above advisories, the appellant

applied for the transfer of the explosives‟ licence vis-à-vis the

godown on the land covered by Dag No. 183, Patta No. 9 hitherto in

the name of the Branch Manager, STATFED, Hojai Branch, Hojai to

her name which eventually was granted to her on 4.3.2011.

Subsequent thereto, by her application dated 3.4.2011 addressed

to the Joint Chief Controller of Explosives, East Circle Office, Govt.

of India, Kolkata, the appellant sought for the necessary approval of

the drawings for construction of the new LPG godown on the plot

covered by Dag No. 713, Patta No. 213. The records reveal that the

approval having been accorded, the appellant completed the

construction of the LPG godown as per the specifications on that

WA 340/2011 of 43

plot and on 9.8.2011 had been awarded the explosives‟ licence for

storage shed for possession of gas filled cylinders as detailed

therein at the said site. In view of these intervening developments

from time to time culminating in the construction of the new LPG

godown on the plot covered by Dag No. 713 and Patta No. 213

under the close surveillance of the authorities of the various

Government organizations, we do not feel persuaded to lend our

concurrence to the plea of invalidity of the appellant‟s candidature

for the aforenoted incongruencies in the informations furnished by

her in response to the queries contained in Clause-13(A1). In fact

there had never been any doubt or speculation about the physical

identity of the land covered by Dag No. 713 and Patta No. 213

offered by the appellant. Its area as specified in her application was

in excess of the dimensions specified in the Brochure.

48. The cavil against the appellant‟s candidature qua the

informations/ documents furnished by her to display her financial

capability is, as noticed hereinbefore, that some of the Fixed

Deposit Receipts etc. were encumbered and the originals thereof

being not in her possession, could not be produced by her at the

time of the interview. Neither the Corporation nor the appellant has

disputed this fact. According to the former, though the resources

shored-up by her disclosed under various headings totalled Rs.

31,72,371/-, Fixed Deposit Receipts covering an amount of Rs.

WA 340/2011 of 43

8,80,838/- could not be produced both at the interview and during

the field verification of the credentials. It, therefore, straightaway

rejected those documents and excluded the corresponding amount

from the total tally and worked out a figure of Rs. 22,91,533/-

backed by other valid instruments and the deposits in the relevant

savings bank accounts as the index of her financial soundness for

the distributorship. Marks were duly awarded on this figure to her

having regard to the prescribed stipulations. The field verification

team on a cross-check of the documents and the figures observed

that the revised funds of Rs. 22,91,533/- did not have any negative

impact on the marks awarded by the Selection Committee as the

appellant at all relevant times had at her disposal resources in

excess of Rs. 20 Lakhs.

49. Significantly, the advertisement did not specify any

requirement that the Fixed Deposit Receipts to be furnished by the

applicants would essentially have to be unencumbered. This has

been unequivocally observed by the learned Single Judge as well

and not questioned before us by the respondent No.6 herein. It is

also not the plea of this respondent that the assessment of the

appellant‟s financial capability on the basis of the documents/

deposits construed to be valid by the Selection Committee is either

incorrect or unacceptable on any other count. A perusal of the

facts and figures furnished by the appellant pertaining to the land/

WA 340/2011 of 43

godown discloses that she had duly furnished the dimensions

thereof in compliance of the requirement to that effect as engrafted

therein. The plea to the contrary with reference to the Letter of

Intent in the face of the selection of the third plot, therefore, does

not appeal to us. The table/ format under Clause-13 (A1) on a

simple visual estimation, in our view, permits alternative offers. On

a cumulative consideration of all above, the impeachment of the

validity of the appellant‟s candidature on this count as well fails.

50. A conjoint reading of the covenants contained in the

advertisement, the Brochure and the application format, though

insist on correctness of the informations sought from the

candidates on all essential aspects as enumerated therein

indicating cancellation of the candidature and termination of the

distributorship (if allotted) as well as a consequence if any

statement is found to be wrong, incorrect or misleading, in our

estimate, the same does not logically ordain an unrealistic, rigid

and dogmatic approach. Though indubitably a public authority

while administering a participatory process of the kind in hand

has to be scrupulously adherent to the professed standards

relatable thereto to ensure fairness and transparency of the

pursuit, no literal predominance of the stipulated norms ought to

be ascribed so as to wield an overwhelming primacy over the

otherwise substantially valid tenders conforming to the

WA 340/2011 of 43

contemplated standards tailored for efficient and effective execution

of the contract advertised. The clauses of the advertisement, the

Brochure and the application format entail both cancellation of the

candidature and termination of the distributorship on furnishing of

wrong, incorrect and misrepresented informations. The affidavits in

the prescribed format leave it to the respondent Corporation to take

a decision to that effect. It under Clause-25 of the Brochure has

kept to itself as the final authority, the prerogative of providing any

clarification or interpretation on the contents thereof. Though the

same does not either signify or permit an authoritarian disposition

vis-à-vis the prescriptions professed by it, some freeplay in the joint

without, however, compromising with the exigencies of the project

sought to be executed would be available to it lest the entire

exercise is rendered impractical and unworkable. The Corporation

being the author of its terms though normally should adhere to its

professed standards in such matters, a wholly literal construction

thereof may in a given fact situation have the potential of defeating

the very purpose of initiating the process. The Corporation being

engaged in a public utility enterprise, out of the two options

available to it i.e. outright rejection of tenders on a pedantic

construction of its stipulations or a realistic orientation sans

compromise with the quintessentials, in our view, the latter needs

to be preferred. To reiterate, while routine divagation from the

proclaimed stipulations cannot receive judicial primatur, the

WA 340/2011 of 43

underlying purpose of the process in a given fact situation

depending on the degree and extent of non-compliance by the

competing tenderers would admit marginal flexibility if the ultimate

objective of the enterprise is neither jeopardized nor undermined.

The entire gamut of the covenants bearing on the cancellation of

the candidature and/or termination of the distributorship, in our

view, unambiguously conveys this proposition. The interview

followed by field verification having been enjoined to be the

essential and integral segments of the selection process, the

outright rejection of the candidature on the ground of mistakes of

the kind noticed in the contextual facts would render the same

wholly inconsequential.

51. Having regard to the overall scheme of evaluation of

suitability of the competing candidates, such a course, in our view,

is incomprehensible. None of the candidates when judged by the

criteria of ineligibility set out in Clause-4.5 of the Brochure were

disqualified to attend the interview, whereafter, on due selection,

field verification followed. With utmost respect we observe that the

learned Single Judge had kept out of consideration the bearing of

the sequence of interview and verification on the process of final

selection. The obvious purpose of the interview and the field

verification being to be unmistakably assured of the correctness or

otherwise of the indispensable facts and the supporting documents

in original, we are left unconvinced by the plea of automatic

WA 340/2011 of 43

cancellation of a candidature on the mere detection of any error or

mistake howsoever minimal it may be in the facts narrated in the

application.

52. Apart from the fact, as pointed out on behalf of the

appellant from the call letter issued to the respondent No.6, that

she as well had not submitted all the documents as required, it is

significant to observe also that the former had scored over the

latter, as the marksheet would disclose, on account of financial

capability, experience, business ability/ acumen as well as

personality. This is significant in view of the limited challenge on

the aspects of infrastructure and financial capability only.

53. The sequence of events pervading the process clearly

suggests that the Corporation had not been misled by the

informations furnished by the appellant as well as the documents

in support thereof. The Corporation being the author of the norms

for compliance by the intending tenderers, it is otherwise the best

judge to decide on the non-observance or digression therefrom.

The Selection Committee, admittedly, was a body comprised of high

ranking and experienced officials of the Corporation best suited to

perceive, visualize and appreciate the suitability of a candidate for

the project in hand. Not only did the Selection Committee not reject

the candidature of the appellant, on an overall consideration/

WA 340/2011 of 43

analysis of the informations furnished by her as well as the

documents laid in course of the interview, the field verification team

on due inspection did ratify its decision to identify her as the most

preferred candidate. There is nothing on record to otherwise doubt

the correctness of the appreciation of the suitability of the

appellant. Though a fleeting flavour of undue favour by the

Corporation is perceptible to the respondent No.6, no condign

factual foundation has been laid by her to act thereon for

nullifying the settlement. In other words, we are unable to return a

finding that either the Corporation was deluded to award the

distributorship to the appellant being wholly misled by wrong

facts/ misrepresentation/ suppression of facts or did favour her on

collateral considerations thereby unjustifiably discounting the

sanctity of the prescribed norms or compromising with the quality

and efficiency of the distributorship to the detriment of the public

at large. The updated facts reveal that meanwhile the appellant,

pursuant to her settlement, has already shifted to the new godown

on 19.8.2011 and has been catering to the needs of a sizeable

section of the inhabitants in the locality

54. Having regard to the constricted parameters of the

power of judicial review of this Court in mattes of the like before us,

as has been propounded by the Hon‟ble Apex Court in Tata Cellular

–vs- Union of India, (1994) 6 SCC 651, we are unable to conclude

WA 340/2011 of 43

in the contextual facts that there has been any failure of justice far

less a gross abuse thereof warranting an intervention to invalidate

the settlement awarded to the appellant. The approach adopted by

the Corporation and the course charted by it for deciding to select

the appellant, when viewed in the overall perspective of the norms

prescribed to guide the selection process, in our opinion, was a

plausible one and can by no means be impeached as arbitrary,

illogical or absurd.

55. In view of the determination made hereinabove on the

aspects bearing on the assailment in the instant appeal, we are in

respectful disagreement with the conclusions reached by the

learned Single Judge. The impugned judgment and order is

interfered with.

56. The appeal is allowed. The parties, however, are left to

bear their own costs.

JUDGE JUDGE

WRIT APPEAL NO. 340 OF 2011 - Gauhati High Courtghconline.gov.in/Judgment/WA3402011.pdf · WA...

Documents

Transcript of WRIT APPEAL NO. 340 OF 2011 - Gauhati High Courtghconline.gov.in/Judgment/WA3402011.pdf · WA...