RAMCHANDRA DHANORIA Vs. HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD
LAWS(RAJ)-2012-4-111
HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN
Decided on April 06,2012

RAMCHANDRA DHANORIA Appellant
VERSUS
HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) INSTANT petition has been filed by one of the applicant who had participated for allotment of petrol pump to be installed by Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited at Dug-Gangadhar Road which is 7 kms from Motipura Chowki Railway Crossing towards Chhabra which is shown at serial no.277 in the advertisement issued by the respondent-HPCL dt.29.08.2010.
(2.) THE petitioner and respondent-5 both submitted their application and the committee after examining the respective records of the individual applicants empanelled respondent-5 at serial no.1 and the present petitioner was second empanelled candidate. THE first empanelled candidate Mr. Chetan Maheshwari (respondent-5) secured 93.15 marks and the petitioner-2nd empanelled secured 92.15 marks and land offered by both of them is part of khasra no.753 & abutting the petitioner's land and number of complaints were made regarding first empanelled candidate-respondent-5 by the petitioner as well and his basic grievance was that land offered by the first empanelled candidate Chetan Maheshwari is not having sufficient depth of 35 meters after leaving 30 meters from the middle of the road as per PWD norms and the petitioner is holding land for retail outlet. After the dispute being raised and there were complaints made regarding subject land offered by respondent-5 and direction of this Court in CWP-4929/2011 filed by the petitioner decided on 13.04.2011 the committee was constituted by the respondent to investigate the site and make their report which alone could justify the veracity of the complaints made. THE investigation team comprising of three officers visited the site offered by the respondent-5 who is first empanelled candidate and also examined record of Tehsildar office and the report made by the Investigating Team has been referred in para-5 of the order passed by the respondent dt.10.02.2012 (Annx.16) which is reproduced ad infra : "As per the advice of Investigation Officer, a team comprising of 3 Officers have visited the Tehsil Office of Chhabra and the site offered by Shri Chetan Maheshwari. Records of the Tehsil Office was referred by the team and subsequently together with concerned Patwari, the team has proceeded to the site offered by Shri Chetan Maheshwari. THEy have carried out measurement of the site offered by Shri Chetan Maheshwari and it was found that the site under Khasra No.753 (753/3 as per Tehsildar's Report) which is belonging to Shri Chetan Maheshwari has a frontage of 79.24 meters and depth of the plot from the centerline of the road is 71.7 meters. Thus, after leaving 30 meters from the middle of the road as per PWD norms, the offered site is having depth of 41.7 meters which is much larger than the required depth of 35 meters." The Investigating Team after site verification clearly observed that site under Khasra No.753 offered by the first empanelled candidate has frontage of 79.24 meters and depth of the plot from the centerline of the road is 71.7 meters. Thus the land offered by the first empanelled candidate is as per the requirement of the HPCL. Counsel submits that what was transpired by the committee regarding inspection report in para-5 is in complete contradiction of the report submitted by the Patwari who is custodian of the revenue records and what is being referred to by the Investigating Team of the respondent company is factually incorrect & requires interference by this Court. Even if there is some justification in the submission made by counsel for petitioner but after the report has come on record submitted by the officers of the HPCL referred to supra, what is being contended by the petitioner that there are contradiction in the report which the officers of the HPCL has prepared, these are all disputes questions of fact and cannot be looked into by this Court in its limited scope of judicial review U/Art.226 of the Constitution. Consequently, the petition is devoid of merit and is hereby dismissed. However, the petitioner will be at liberty to avail the remedy which the law permits. ;


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