WA 340/2011 Page 1 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 Page 2 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 Page 3 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 Page 4 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 Page 5 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 Page 6 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 Page 7 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 Page 8 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 Page 9 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 Page 10 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 Page 11 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 Page 12 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 Page 13 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 Page 14 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 Page 15 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 Page 16 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 Page 17 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 Page 18 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 Page 19 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 Page 20 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 Page 21 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 Page 22 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 Page 23 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 Page 24 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 Page 25 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 Page 26 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 Page 27 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 Page 28 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 Page 29 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 Page 30 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 Page 31 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 Page 32 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 Page 33 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 Page 34 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 Page 35 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 Page 36 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 Page 37 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 Page 38 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 Page 39 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 Page 40 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 Page 41 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 Page 42 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 Page 43 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