Page 1

    NON-REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.4681 OF 2014

(Arising out of SLP(C) NO. 25020 OF 2009)

SUNITA GUPTA        ……….APPELLANT Vs.

UNION OF INDIA & ORS.          ………RESPONDENTS

J U D G M E N T

V.Gopala Gowda J.

Leave granted.

2.  The present appeal arises out of the impugned  

judgment and order dated 21.07.2009 passed by the  

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in W.P. No.  

5199 of 2007 whereby the High Court dismissed the  

writ petition filed by the appellant on the ground  

that  the  orders  dated  27.7.2006  and  26.12.2006  

passed by the respondents do not suffer from any  

infirmity, illegality or error in law and they are  

perfectly  justified  and  in  accordance  with  the

Page 2

C.A. @ SLP (C) No. 25020 of 2009

guidelines prescribed in this regard and therefore  

the same do not require interference by the High  

Court.  

3. The facts in brief are stated hereunder:

The  Hindustan  Petroleum  Corporation  Limited  

issued  an  advertisement  in  the  newspaper  “Amar  

Ujala” dated 20.7.2005 inviting applications for  

opening its retail outlet in the said location in  

the category of open-W(women) by 22.8.2005, and in  

pursuance  of  the  above  advertisement,  the  

appellant  submitted  an  application  on  18.8.2005  

along with all the relevant documents and demand  

draft of Rs.1,000/- for grant of retail outlet.  

Thereafter,  the  team  of  the  Corporation  visited  

the appellant’s site and submitted its report to  

the office. The Corporation after being satisfied  

with  the  location  of  the  land,  called  the  

appellant  for  an  interview  vide  letter  dated  

10.2.2006 and she appeared for the interview on  

3.3.2006  before  the  selection  committee  

constituted by the respondent. On the same day, a  

list was displayed on the notice board in which  

2

Page 3

C.A. @ SLP (C) No. 25020 of 2009

the appellant’s name was first on the list and she  

was shown as selected.  

The appellant was waiting for a letter of intent  

but  then  on  7.8.2006  she  received  a  registered  

letter  dated  27.7.2006  issued  by  the  Deputy  

General Manager in-charge North Zone, wherein it  

was mentioned that the respondents decided to set  

aside  the  entire  interview  and  selection  and  

called for a fresh interview to be conducted. The  

appellant  got  35  marks  awarded  for  ‘Land  and  

infrastructure’ as indicated in the letter dated  

27.7.2006 but it was mentioned that the selection  

committee wrongly awarded 35 marks as zero marks  

should  have  been  awarded  for  land  because  no  

consent was obtained from the owners of the land.

 4. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant filed Writ  

Petition  No.5199  of  2007  praying  for  a  writ  of  

certiorari to quash the orders dated 27.7.2006 and  

26.12.2006.  The  relief  of  writ  of  mandamus  has  

also  been  sought  to  direct  the  respondents  for  

issuing  a  letter  of  intent  to  the  appellant  in  

pursuance  of  her  selection  dated  3.3.2006  for  

3

Page 4

C.A. @ SLP (C) No. 25020 of 2009

retail  outlet  dealership  at  Islam  Nagar-Bisauli  

Marg,  and  further  to  direct  the  respondents  to  

issue necessary HSD and MSD for her retail outlet  

dealership. Prior to this, the appellant filed W.P  

No. 56740 of 2006 praying for quashing of order  

dated 27.7.2006. The High Court, vide order dated  

12.10.2006, directed the appellant to file a fresh  

comprehensive  representation  along  with  the  

certified copy of the order as well as a complete  

copy  of  the  writ  petition  with  all  Annexures  

before  the  concerned  competent  authority  within  

two weeks from the date of the order and on such a  

representation  being  filed  as  stipulated,  the  

concerned  competent  authority  shall  decide  the  

same  within  eight  weeks  of  the  receipt  of  the  

representation  by  means  of  a  reasoned  order.  

Subsequent to this, vide order dated 26.12.2006,  

the  respondent-Corporation  constituted  a  review  

committee  and  stated  that  the  land  held  by  the  

appellant is jointly held in her husband’s name  

along with four others and consent letter from her  

husband and his father have been obtained, but not  

4

Page 5

C.A. @ SLP (C) No. 25020 of 2009

from  the  other  owners.  Accordingly,  the  

appellant’s representation was held to be disposed  

off in compliance of the order of the High Court  

dated 12.10.2006. The appellant being aggrieved by  

the aforesaid orders has filed the present appeal,  

urging certain legal and factual grounds.

 5.  The  learned  counsel  for  the  appellant  has  

contended  that  the  decision  to  cancel  the  

selection of the appellant is void for breach of  

principles of natural justice as the appellant was  

not afforded an opportunity of hearing by the so-

called  Review  Committee  and  the  same  is  ultra  

vires of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.  

It was further contended that there is no whisper  

of  the  Review  Committee  in  the  guidelines  and  

therefore it did not have the jurisdiction to sit  

in appeal over the selection. It was argued that  

the land map issued by the Consolidation Officer  

which was annexed by the appellant along with her  

application  form,  showing  the  plot  in  question,  

has been divided into three parts, out of which  

the middle part belongs to the appellant and that  

5

Page 6

C.A. @ SLP (C) No. 25020 of 2009

the  husband’s  and  father-in-law’s  consent  was  

there for the same and also, the land required was  

only 900 sq.m. but the appellant had proposed land  

of an area of 2980 sq.m. and as such there was no  

occasion  or  requirement  to  submit  the  consent  

letters of other co-owners when proposed land of  

appellant’s husband was in excess of the required  

land. It was further argued that the order passed  

by the respondent no.3 is bad in law as the High  

Court vide its order dated 12.10.2006 directed the  

competent authority of the Corporation to decide  

the  representation  of  the  appellant  and  not  

respondent no.3. The appellant also obtained the  

consent  letters  from  all  the  co-owners  on  

11.04.2006.

6. The learned counsel for the respondent on the  

other hand, contended that the appellant did not  

submit complete documents as required and failed  

to submit the consent letters of the co-owners of  

the  proposed  land,  as  a  result  of  which  the  

selection of the appellant was cancelled by order  

dated 27.7.2006 and finally decided on 26.12.2006  

6

Page 7

C.A. @ SLP (C) No. 25020 of 2009

as  the  appellant  overlooked  the  document  dated  

10.2.2006  which  demonstrated  that  all  the  

documents were to be placed before the interview  

board.  The  condition  of  submission  of  consent  

letters of all co-owners of the land was part and  

parcel  of  the  conditions  mentioned  in  the  

advertisement  dated  20.7.2005,  a  mandatory  

requirement  under  Clause  14  of  the  dealership  

guidelines and it was apparent from paragraph 13  

of the advertisement as well as in the application  

form  itself.  It  was  submitted  that  since  the  

consent letters of the co-owners of the land were  

not submitted along with the application form, the  

selection  was  rightly  cancelled  and  35  marks  

awarded to the appellant under the parameter of  

land and infrastructure facility was wrong and the  

same was rectified by awarding zero marks. It was  

further submitted that the order dated 27.7.2006  

was  passed  after  affording  full  opportunity  of  

hearing to the appellant. It was urged that the  

appellant  has  wrongly  challenged  the  impugned  

orders as a violation of her fundamental rights.

7

Page 8

C.A. @ SLP (C) No. 25020 of 2009

7. We have heard the rival legal contentions for  

the  parties.  The  appellant  was  initially  found  

eligible and was called for the interview. After  

the interview, she was shown as selected and the  

visit  to  the  land  mentioned  along  with  the  

application  for  the  dealership  was  accepted  as  

sufficient  and  35  marks  were  awarded  in  that  

regard. Subsequently, it was changed to zero, as  

per  clause  12  of  the  guidelines,  on  the  ground  

that  consent  letters  of  the  co-owners  were  not  

submitted  before  the  due  date  along  with  the  

application  but  much  later  and  as  per  the  said  

clause, no addition/deletion or alteration will be  

permitted in the application once it is submitted.

  In our considered viewpoint, this approach of  

the respondents was erroneous as the application  

form of the appellant was initially accepted along  

with  the  consent  letters  of  her  husband  and  

father-in-law to whom the land belonged and the  

site  visit  was  completed  satisfactorily  and  she  

was  called  in  for  the  interview.  After  the  

interview, her name was on top of the results list  

8

Page 9

C.A. @ SLP (C) No. 25020 of 2009

and she was shown as selected. She was awarded 35  

marks  under  the  head  ‘Land  and  Infrastructure’.  

Later,  the  respondents  made  an  about  turn  and  

declared that she was ineligible as she had given  

the consent letters of the co-owners after the due  

date and hence, the marks awarded under ‘Land and  

Infrastructure’ were reduced to zero. Hence, the  

review order passed by the respondents is bad in  

law as the appellant was originally found to have  

fulfilled all the criteria for the land offered  

which was greater in area than the land required  

as per the rules and guidelines of the respondent  

Corporation.  The  review  committee,  on  a  mere  

technicality,  denied  the  appellant  her  right  to  

the dealership, after it was previously declared  

that she was selected for the same. It is evident  

that the documents the appellant provided at first  

were seen to be sufficient, and the fact that she  

chose  to  give  some  additional  documents  to  

buttress  her  application  cannot  be  a  ground  to  

nullify  her  appointment,  given  that  clause  14,  

‘Preference for applicants offering suitable land’  

9

Page 10

C.A. @ SLP (C) No. 25020 of 2009

of the HPCL “Guidelines for Selection of Retail  

Outlet Holders” details that the land owned by the  

family  members  namely  spouse/unmarried  children  

will also be considered subject to the consent of  

the concerned family member. Since, in this case,  

the land was owned by her husband and father-in-

law, she gave their consent letters along with the  

application form within the due date. We feel that  

the appellant has sufficiently met the conditions  

of the application and the respondent Corporation  

has  erred  in  subsequently  cancelling  the  

appointment on a flimsy technicality and has acted  

in an arbitrary and unfair manner. It is relevant  

to quote the case of Mahabir Auto Stores & Ors. v.  

Indian Oil Corporation and Ors.1, wherein it was  

held that -  

“Having  regard  to  the  nature  of  the  transaction, we are of the opinion that it  would be  appropriate to state that in cases  where the instrumentality of the state enters  the contractual field, it should be governed  by the incidence of the contract. It is true  that it may not be necessary to give reasons  but, in our opinion, in the field of this  nature fairness must be there to the parties  concerned,  and  having  regard  to  the  large  

1 (1990) 3 SCC 752

1

Page 11

C.A. @ SLP (C) No. 25020 of 2009

number or the long period and the nature of  the  dealings  between  the  parties,  the  appellant  should  have  been  taken  into  confidence. Equality and fairness at least  demands this much from an instrumentality of  the State dealing with a right of the State  not to treat the contract as subsisting. We  must, however, evolve such process which will  work.”

For  the  reasons  stated  supra,  we  hold  that  the  

respondent-  Corporation,  being  an  instrumentality  of  

the State has acted unfairly in the present case in  

cancelling  the  selection  of  the  appellant  for  the  

retail outlet dealership in question and not issuing  

the letter of intent to her. The appellant has competed  

for  the  appointment  and  was  selected  fairly  after  

satisfying the requirements.  Therefore, we direct the  

respondents to restore the appointment to the appellant  

within six weeks from the date of receipt of the copy  

of this order. The appeal is accordingly allowed on the  

above terms with no order as to costs.

                        ………………………………………………………………………J.

                       [GYAN SUDHA MISHRA]                    

                      ………………………………………………………………………J.               [V. GOPALA GOWDA] New Delhi, April 22, 2014  

1