CHAIRMAN CUM MANAGING DIRECTOR INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD. AND ORS. versus SUNITA KUMARI & ANR.

Citation: [2014] 9 S.C.R. 559 · Decided: 18-09-2014 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: MADAN B. LOKUR · Disposal: Disposed off
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2014] 9 S.C.R. 559 
CHAIRMAN CUM MANAGING DIRECTOR INDIAN OIL 
CORPORATION LTD. AND ORS. 
v. 
SUNITA KUMARI & ANR. 
(Civil Appeal No.8980 OF 2014) 
SEPTEMBER 18, 2014 
[MADAN B. LOKUR AND C. NAGAPPAN, JJ.] 
Public Distribution - Petroleum products - Allotment of 
dealership/distributorship - Cancellation of - Effect - Whether, 
on cancellation of allotment of a dealership or distributorship 
for petroleum products in favour of the first ranked or first 
empanelled candidate, there is automatic allotment in favour 
A 
B 
c 
of the second ranked or second empanelled candidate, 
subject to fulfillment of the conditions of allotment - Held: If D 
the selection process is vitiated due to political considerations 
or patronage or other extraneous considerations, there is no 
automatic allotment in favour of the second empanelled 
candidate when the selection of the first empanelled candidate 
is cancelled - This is because the entire selection process 
E 
gets vitiated and not just one selection or allotment~ However, 
if an individual selection is cancelled on merits, such as lack 
of eligibility or erroneous calculation of marks that is 
cancellation for reasons other than political considerations or 
patronage or other extraneous considerations, then the entire 
selection process would not be vitiated. 
Allowing the appeal and dismissing the petition, the 
Court 
F 
HELD: If the selection process is vitiated due to 
G 
political considerations or patronage or other extraneous 
considerations, there is no automatic allotment in favour 
of the second empanelled candidate when the selection 
of the first empanelled candidate is cancelled. This is · 
559 
H 
560 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 9 S.C,R. 
A because the entire selectio11 process gets vitiated and not 
just one selection or allotment. If the selection process 
is itself vitiated, there is no question of going down the 
list of empanelled candidates. The entire panel of 
selected candidates must stand cancelled and a fresh 
B selection process must be initiated. However, if an 
individual selection is cancelled on merits, such as lack 
of eligibility or erroneous calculation of marks that is 
cancellation 
for reasons 
other than 
political 
considerations or patronage or other extraneous 
c considerations, then the entire selection process would 
not be vitiated. [Paras 26, 27] [568-C-E; 569-A-B] 
Raj Bala v. Union of India, [Civil Appeal No. 7718 of 
1995 decided on 23rd August, 1995] and Anil Kumar Singh 
v. The Chairman, Dealers Selection Board Civil Appeal 
D Nos.2012-2014 of 2003 decided on 3rd March, 2003 -
distinguished. 
E 
Ritu Mahajan v. Indian Oil Corporation (2009) 3 SCC 
506; 2009 (1) SCR 1126 - overruled. 
Awadesh Mani Tripathi v. Union of India 2014 (10) 
SCALE 655 - relied on. 
Onkar Lal Bajaj v. Union of India (2003) 2 SCC 673: 2002 
(5) Suppl. SCR 605; Mukund Swarup Mishra v. Union of India 
F (2007) 2 SCC 536: 2007 (1) SCR 825; Mukund Swarup 
Mishra v. Union of India (2008) 15 SCC 243 and Bharat 
Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. Ramesh Chand Trivedi 2014 
(10) SCALE 659 - referred to. 
G 
Case Law Reference: 
2002 (5) Suppl. SCR 605 
Referred to 
Para 8 
2007 (1) SCR 825 
Referred to 
Para 9 
(2008) 15 sec 243 
Referred to 
Para 10 
H 
CHAIRMAN CUM. MD. IOCL v. SUNITA KUMARI 
561 
Relied on 
Para 15 
2014 (10) SCALE 655 
2014 (10) SCALE 659 
2009 (1) SCR 1126 
Referred to 
Para 15 
Overruled 
Para 16 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 
8980 of 2014. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 10.02.2011 of the 
High Court of Judicature at Patna in LP.A. No.307 of 2010. 
WITH 
SLP (Civil) No. 31006 of 2012. 
A 
B 
c 
N.K. Kaul, ASG, N. Rai. B. Sunita Rao, Ritu Bhardwaj, 
Anurag, Annam D.N. Rao Neelam Jain, Vaishali R. Akhilesh 
Kumar Pandey, Ashish Giri, Swati Chandra, B. Krishna Prasad, 
D 
Himanshu Shekhar for the Appearing Parties. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
MADAN B. LOKUR, J. 1. Leave granted in S.L.P. (Civil) 
No. 313 of 2012. 
2. The question for consideration is whether, on the 
cancellation of the allotment of a dealership or distributorship 
E 
I for petroleum products in favour of the first ranked or first 
empanelled candidate, there is an automatic allotment in favour 
F 
of the second ranked or second empanelled candidate, subject 
to fulfillment of the conditions of allotment. In our opinion, in view 
of the decisions of this Court, if the allotment is tainted due to 
political connections or patronage or other
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.