KRISHNA DEVI Vs. INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD.
LAWS(SC)-2016-5-70
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Decided on May 16,2016

KRISHNA DEVI Appellant
VERSUS
INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) Leave granted.
(2.) Having regard to the nature of short controversy involved in this appeal, notice to Respondent No. 1 is not considered necessary. It is more so when the contesting respondent No. 2 is present on caveat.
(3.) The High court while admitting the appeal of Respondent No. 1 against the final order dated 28.01.2016 passed by the Single Judge in W.P. No. 19906/2013 filed by Respondent No. 2 against the appellant herein and Respondent No. 1 passed the following interim order:- "The controversy in these Letter Patent Appeals pertains to appointment of Retail Outlet Dealership. The selection committee placed first respondent- writ petitioner at No. 1 and the appellant in the accompanying appeal at No. 2 without even inspecting the land offered by them. After the merit list was circulated on 06.03.2013, the land offered by respondent No. 1 was inspected on 07.05.2013 and found 'suitable' on 08.05.2013. Soon thereafter, on 27.05.2013, the inspection committee asked for the 'demarcation of the land' in question. The record further reveals that first respondent claims to have taken on lease the land measuring 2 Kanals, 9 Marlas out of total land measuring 22 Kanals 13 Marlas. The land is owned by several co-sharers and one of them has in fact, filed even partition proceedings. The said co-sharer had raised objection against installation of retail outlet on the piece of land offered by respondent No. 1 as without partition, she cannot claim that the prime front portion of the land abutting the main highway, has fallen to the share of her lessors. The appellant is unable to explain as to how could it make selection or declare the land 'suitable' without verifying the record as it was still a joint holding and the affidavits relied upon by respondent No. 1 are not by all the co-sharers. Similarly, the appointment of appellant in the accompanying appeal as the Retail Outlet Dealer on the basis of her placement at No. 2 in merit list is equally strange. The site where she has statedly installed the outlet is 40 kilometers away from the area, which was advertised for appointment of dealership. Prime-facie, the merit list appears to have been prepared for the reasons other than the merit. Admit. Operation of the order passed by learned Single Judge shall remain stayed. Resultantly, neither respondent No. 1 nor the appellant in the accompanying appeal shall be allowed to operate the retail outlet. Fresh advertisement, if any, by the Corporation, shall be subject to final outcome of these appeals. ;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.