- (1.) Ref: Civil Misc. Review Application
(2.) The review application has been filed by counsel for the petitioner/applicant for reviewing the judgement and order dated 05.09.2016 passed in Writ C No.41769 of 2016 (Mehmood Hasan vs. The Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. and others) wherein the order dated 11.07.2016 passed by Senior Area Manager of the Indian Oil Corporation has been affirmed and the writ petition was dismissed and the Writ Petition was dismissed in following terms:- "6. We have occasion to peruse the impugned order in question and find that the candidature of the petitioner has been cancelled by the respondents on three grounds namely (1) that the land offered by the petitioner for construction of showroom was taken on lease on 24.10.2013 for 16 years, however, lease period will commence from 1 month before opening of Indane showroom and as such, the land offered is considered not on lease as on last date of submission of application; (2) land offered by the petitioner for construction of godown was taken on lease by him on 26.10.2013 for 16 years. As per lease deed, lease period will commence from starting of agency and as such, the land offered is not on lease as on last date of submission of application and (3) regarding creamy layer status as on last date of submission of application the petitioner had given a letter dated 13.6.2016 stating that the district administration is not issuing certificate for OBC and creamy layer status as on last date of submission of application, therefore, the credential of the petitioner was not found valid on the last date of submission of application form. 7. We have also proceeded to examine the Columns 9 and 10 of the application form for LPG Distributorship appended as Annexure No.1 to the writ petition and find that as per Column-9 of the application format in question the applicant was required to provide the details of land for construction of LPG godown or constructed LPG godown (within 15 km from municipal/town/village limits of the advertised location in the same State) owned or leased for minimum 15 years in the name of applicant/member (s) of Family Unit. Column-10 further required the candidates to provide the details of land for showroom or showroom at the advertised location or locality. As per Column-9 and 10 of the application format in question the petitioner claimed that the land in question was taken on lease on 26.10.2013 and the lease deed was executed by lessor Surendra son of Om Prakash in respect of land measuring 1200 sq. mtrs. in Khasra No.73/1/1 situated in village Papre Ki Rasoolpur, Pargana Haroda, Saharanpur. The lease deed so executed is appended as Annexure No.2 to the writ petition. Another lease deed was also executed by one Jabar Singh son of Sri Baldev Singh in respect of land measuring 24 sq. mtrs in Khasra Nos. 123 and 124 situated in village Kailashpur, Pargana, Tehsil and District Saharanpur in favour of the petitioner on 24.10.2010. The same is also appended as Annexure No.3 to the writ petition. The aforementioned lease deeds were executed in favour of the petitioner for a period of 16 years and are valid upto 24.11.1931. In the said lease deed the tenancy would commence one month before the selection of the petitioners for LPG Distributorship. 8. It is relevant to indicate that the land, which was required for construction of LPG Godown, is owned or leased for minimum 15 years in the name of applicant/member (s) of family unit or jointly leased in the name of the applicant/member (s) of the family unit with any other persons. The Corporation has also categorically proceeded to make a mention that the date of documents of land for godown should be on or before the last date for submission of application as specified in the advertisement or corrigendum (if any) and the same will be verified during field verification. Accordingly, Column-10 also proceeds to make a mention that the requisite certificate had also been asked on or before the date of submission of the application and accordingly the declaration column is also to be filled up. 9. In the aforesaid circumstances, we have also occasion to peruse the averments contained in the lease deed so appended in the writ petition and find that in clause-5 of the said lease deed (Annexure No.2 at page 36) it is averred that the lease deed would commence from the date of allotment of LPG Agency and would be applicable for 16 years and same would cease to exist on 23.11.2031. 10. Once this is the factual situation that in the aforesaid lease in question, specific clause has been averred that the same would be valid for 16 years and would exist upto 23.11.2031, then in normal circumstances, an inference can be drawn that the said lease in question had commenced w.e.f. 24.11.2015 but surprisingly the application so moved by the petitioner in pursuance of the aforesaid advertisement was dated 23.10.2013 and alongwith the said application, the lease in question was also appended. In the aforesaid circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that admittedly on the date of application the lease deed in question was not in existence. Once the lessor and lessee have specifically averred in the lease deed that the same would commence one month before the allotment of the retail outlet and the same would be valid only upto 23.11.2031 (valid for 16 years), then definitely on the date of moving of the application the lease in question was not in existence and as such, whatever ground taken by the petitioner regarding first and second objections is unsustainable and is accordingly rejected. With regard to 3rd objection, this is admitted situation that on the date of application on 27.10.2013, the petitioner did not have the requisite certificate regarding creamy layer in OBC category and the same has been submitted to the Corporation on 13.6.2016 and as such, we are of the considered opinion that on the date of application neither the petitioner has lease in his favour nor he has requisite certificate regarding creamy layer. 11. The writ petition sans merit and is dismissed."
(3.) Shri H.P. Dube, learned counsel for the petitioner-applicant precisely submits that in the present matter while deciding the Writ Petition, the Court had not appreciated the submissions so advanced by petitioner-applicant and also did not record finding of certain ground, which was taken and as such, the judgement and order dated 05.09.2016 is liable to be reviewed and also submits that while deciding the matter, the correct facts could not be appreciated by the Court in respect of issuance of requisite certificate regarding creamy layer in OBC category and the Court has proceeded to approve the rejection order so passed by the Authority concerned regarding the creamy layer certificate whereas the caste certificate issued on 19.04.2000 was submitted before the authority on which an endorsement was also made by Tehsildar on 19.12.2014 that the annual income of petitioner-applicant was only Rs.72,000/- and as such, the Court could not presume that the petitioner-applicant on the date of submission of application did not possess the requisite certificate regarding creamy layer in OBC category and as such, the order dated 05.09.2016 is liable to be reviewed and also highlighted certain discrepancies regarding the sale deed.;