HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPN. AND ANR. versus CHANDER BHAN AND ANR.

Citation: [2006] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 737 · Decided: 05-09-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPN. AND ANR. 
A 
CHANDER BHAN AND ANR. 
SEPTEMBER 5. 2006 
[ARIJIT PASA YAT AND LOKESHWAR SINGH PANT A, JJ.] 
B 
Public distribution-Petroleum products-Retail outlet dealership-
Allot111ent of-Advertisement by Oil Corporation-Applicant applied in open 
category mentioning about availability of a particular site-Letter of intent C 
given-Subsequently another site allotted to the Corporation for running 
Co111pany Owned Company Operated outlet by Urban Development Authority-
The said outlet reserved for SC/ST category as per changed Government 
po/icy-Clai111 of applicant for allot111ent of outlet on the basis of letter of 
intent-Held: not eligible since he had neither applied for the site allotted 
by the Development Authority nor letter of intent given in respect of that D 
site-A/so because subsequently the outlet 1t'as reserved for SC/ST categOJy. 
Advertisement was issued by the appellant-Corporation inviting 
application for appointment as retail outlet dealer. The invitation was for the 
open category. Respondent No. 1 applied for _the same in open category stating 
in his application that a suitable site at Gurgaon was readily available with E 
him. A letter of intent was given to respondent No. 1 approving to run a retail 
outlet dealership at the said site. Thereafter Haryana Urban Development 
Authority issued an advertisement offering land to Nationalized Oil 
Companies. A plot at Sector 53, G urgaon was allotted to the appellant-
Corporation. The outlet at Sector 53 was a Company Owned Company F 
Operated outlet. According to a subsequent policy decision of Government of 
India the said outlet was reserved for Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe 
category. Respondent No. 1 staked a claim that he was entitled to be allotted 
the outlet in terms of letter of intent issued to him. He filed Writ Petition. 
High Court allowed the petition on the ground that the Corporation had acted 
on behalf of respondent No. I for getting the allotment of land from the G 
Development Authority. Hence the present appeal. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. The factual position of the case goes to show that the 
737 
II 
738 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 
A application of respondent No. I for retail outlet was in respect of a different 
site and not the one allotted by the Development Authority. So far as the plot 
at Sector 53 is concerned, respondent No. I was not in picture. The outlet 
was to be run on Company Owned Company Operated basis. As borne out from 
the document brought on record, respondent No. I was not eligible for 
B allotment of the outlet at the site in question. Though initially it was for the 
open category, later on it was earmarked for the Scheduled Castes and 
Scheduled Tribes reserved category. Even though reference has been made to 
... 
the letter of intent issued in favour of respondent No. I, that cannot in any 
way assist respondent No. I because of the nature of allotment made by the 
Development Authority and the directives of Ministry of Petroleum and Gas. 
C There was no agreement between the Corporation and respondent No. I for 
allotment of the site at Sector 53, to respondent No. I. (741-D-F) 
2. The letter of allotment of the Development Authority which refers to 
the letter of intent cannot mean the letter of intent issued in respect of another 
plot of land. No reference is made to respondent No. I even by implication in 
D the Development Authority's letter of allotment. Obviously it refers to a letter 
of intent meant to be issued after due allotment. The High Court proceeded 
on erroneous premises to hold as if there was existing agreement between 
Corporation and respondent No. I, in respect of the plot in question. The High 
Court's conclusion that Corporation was acting on behalf of respondent No. 
E I and/or that the allotment was in favour of respondent No. I is clearly contrary 
to materials on record. (741-G-H; 742-A-Bl 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 3936 of2006. 
From Judgment and Order dated 17.1.2006 of the High Court of Punjab 
F and Haryana at Chandigarh, in C.W.P. No. 12669/2005. 
V.A. Bobde, Sanjay Kapur, Raj iv Kapur, Shubhra Kapur and Arti Singh 
for the Appellants. 
Mukul Rohtagi, Vijay Jhanji, Sanjeev Bhansal and Yash Pal Dhingra for 
G the Respondents . 
. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
ARI.HT PASA YAT, J. Leave granted. 
H 
Appellants call in question legality of the judgment rendered by a 
HIN

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.