- (1.) The short issue raised in the instant appeal filed under Clause X of the Letters Patent is "whether show cause notice was required to be issued to the appellants before recalling their selection, who were selected for HP Gas Distributorship at Chandigarh in open category"? The respondent Corporation passed a speaking order on 14.9.2009 (P-5), pointing out that interviews for HP Gas distributorship were conducted for location Chandigarh on 23/24.6.2008 and the result was declared on 24.6.2008. The appellants were positioned at first place in the merit panel. The respondent Corporation categorically held that the lease agreement in respect of the land for LPG Godown, dated 11.1.2008, as registered on 15.1.2008, was not acceptable because on verification of the record it was revealed that the land shown by the appellants for the purpose of LPG Godown, as mentioned in their application form, was already under acquisition process by the Finance Department of U.T. Chandigarh, vide notification dated 22.9.2006, issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 by the Chandigarh Administration. Therefore, 25 marks awarded in respect of the lease agreement were scored off. By virtue of the aforesaid fact, the name of the appellants was not to appear in the merit panel. Accordingly, the candidature of the appellants for the HP Gas Distributorship for the location Chandigarh was cancelled. The learned Single Judge repelled the argument that show cause notice was required to be issued. The view of the learned Single Judge is discernible from para 5 of the judgment, which reads thus:- 5. The petitioner cannot have a relief in the court only on a simple ground that the marks which had been assigned to him on the basis of a leasehold property could not have validly been allowed to continue when the admitted case is that the property which he had mentioned as fit for establishing a LPG distributorship was not available in his hands or at any rate there had been proceedings of acquisition in respect of that property. His plea that he ought to have been issued with show cause notice before cancellation must be seen only in the context of whether any prejudice was occasioned to him by not issuing such a notice. The prejudice could have been when it would have been possible for the petitioner to show that the basis of the decision for cancellation was wrong and the assumption of the property as being not available due to land acquisition proceedings was a wrong assumption. In some manner an opportunity of hearing ought to have made a difference for the petitioner to point out to some mistake. If such an opportunity were to be only utilised for the petitioner to offer some other property or a property which he would thereafter scout for and offer to them, then I am afraid it is not an opportunity that shall be permitted to him. The terms of advertisement themselves stipulate that no alternative property could be offered after the 1st offer. Even the Bench decision referred to by the learned Senior Counsel shall have no application, for the Bench was actually considering the case of how the cancellation itself was wrongly made for they were taking into reckoning a criterion, which was not enumerated amongst the eligibility criteria. Here the location of the property is one of the most essential features on the basis of which the decision for offering distributorship could have been made. Even after the order was passed cancelling the distributorship and even after the petitioner knew that the property, which he had offered for locating the distributorship could not subsist in view of the Land acquisition proceedings, he was only asking for an opportunity for identifying yet another property and till date, the plea is only that if an opportunity is given he will identify a property and hand it over for consideration. Though the petitioner could not be imputed with any mala fide or deliberate misconduct in his application form relating to the availability of the property, the cancellation is not on the basis of any misrepresentation. Pure and simple, it was a case where some marks which had been accorded to him for his leasehold had to be withdrawn and by a relative grading he was not any longer in the race for a favourable consideration for allotment of distributorship.
(2.) Mr. J.R. Mittal, learned Senior Advocate has argued that had there been an opportunity of hearing given to the appellants then they could have highlighted before the respondent Corporation that the godown site in Chandigarh is allotted on the request of the Corporation by the U.T. Administration who could further allot the same to their distributor (Annexure 'A'), It is claimed that the godown site which falls on the acquired land was to shift. Therefore, the failure to issue show cause notice consistent with the principles of natural justice, has cause prejudice to the rights of the appellants.
(3.) Mr. Atul Nehra and Ms. Jai Shree Thakur, learned Counsel for the respondent Corporation and the Chandigarh Administration have argued that the appellants did not have any right to the issuance of show cause notice because the lease deed, which was condition precedent as specified in the advertisement dated 1.12.2007, published in the English Daily 'The Tribune' (R-1/3), under Clause 11 for capacity to provide infrastructure, 35 marks have been allocated and on the basis of the lease deed the appellants were awarded 25 marks. However, on verification of facts concerning lease deed dated 15.1.2008 (P-1), the land was found to be under acquisition since 22.9.2006. Obviously, there cannot be any lease deed in respect of the aforesaid land and the appellants could not have been awarded any marks. The speaking order passed by the respondent Corporation exhaustively deal with the aforesaid facts.;