SANJAY KUMAR SHUKLA versus M/S BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD. & ORS.

Citation: [2014] 1 S.C.R. 959 · Decided: 07-02-2014 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P. SATHASIVAM · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2014] 1 S.C.R. 959 
SANJAY KUMAR SHUKLA 
A 
v. 
M/S BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD. & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal Nos. 1871-1872 of 2014) 
FEBRUARY 07, 2014 
B 
[P. SATHASIVAM, CJI. AND RANJAN GOGOi, J.] 
Constitution of India, 1950: Article 226 - Writ jurisdiction 
in contractual matter - Advertisement for award of dealership 
of retail outlets - Selection held and appellant placed at C 
SI.No. 1 and respondent No. 7 at Sl.No.2 - No Letter of Intent 
·granted at that stage - Aggrieved by selection, respondent 
No. 7 filed writ petition alleging that land offered by appellant 
was under litigation and was not immediately available for use 
of the retail outlet - A Single Judge of High Court directed that D 
selection process be redone as respondent No. 7 did not 
produce any document of title in respect of assets mentioned 
by him and appellant was not granted requisite NOC from 
District Magistrate in respect of land offered by him - On 
appeal, Division Bench of High Court took the view that once 
E 
appellant was found to be disentitled, the dealership should 
have been awarded to respondent No. 7, he being, at serial 
No.2 of merit list - On appeal, held: Initially, District Authority 
had taken stand that NOC in respect of land offered by 
appellant cannot be issued as the same was found to be 
F 
involved in a litigation i.e. Partition Suit - While writ petition 
was pending, Partition suit was withdrawn and so there was a 
change in stand of District Authority regarding grant of NOC 
- Yet, same was not brought to the notice of Single Judge -
That apart, relevant facts were ignored at different stages by G 
High Court and in light of totality of facts there was a deliberate 
and not bona fide attempt on part of respondent No. 7 to deny 
fruit of selection made in favour of appellant - Corporation is 
directed, if it is of view that operation of the retail outlet is still 
959 
H 
960 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2014] 1 S.C.R. 
A justified by the exigencies, to award the same to appellant by 
completing the requisite formalities in accordance with the 
procedure laid down by the Corporation itself 
The first respondent-Corporation issued an 
8 advertisement calling applications for award of dealership 
of retail outlets. On receipt of applications, selection was 
held and the appellant was placed at Sl.No.1 with 78.04 
marks and respondent No.7 who had secured 77.75 
marks was placed at Sl.No.2. Aggrieved by the selection, 
respondent No.7 filed a complaint before the Corporation 
C challenging the award of 'zero' marks to respondent no.7, 
against a maximum of 'four' awardable under the head 
"Fixed and Moveable Assets" and alleging that the land 
offered by the appellant was under litigation and was not 
immediately available for use of the retail outlet. The said 
D complaint was rejected on the ground that the Technical 
Evaluation Committee in its report had found the land 
offered by the appellant suitable for development of the 
retail outlet and that the issue raised by the respondent 
in the complaint would be dealt with in the process of 
E grant of No Objection Certificate (NOC) by the District 
Magistrate to whom a reference of the matter would be 
made. As regards the claim of respondent No.7 with 
respect to award of marks was concerned, the same was 
rejected on the ground that he had not furnished any 
F document in support of his title to the assets mentioned 
by him in his application. Aggrieved, respondent No.7 
filed a writ petition before the High Court. No Letter of 
Intent was granted to the appellant at that stage. A Single 
Judge of the High Court took the view that there was no 
G fault in the decision of the Corporation in so far as award 
of marks to respondent No.7 was concerned inasmuch 
as the respondent No.7 did not produce any document 
of title in respect of assets mentioned by him and such 
failure on the part of respondent No.7 amounted to 
H suppression/concealment of relevant facts. In so far as 
.SANJAY KUMAR SHUKLA v. BHARAT PETROLEUM 961 
' 
CORPORATION LTD. 
the appellant was concerned, the Single Judge held that 
A 
the requisite NOC from the District Magistrate in respect 
of the land offered by the appellant not having been 
granted, the Corporation cannot be expected to wait 
indefinitely and directed that the selection process be 
redone. Aggrieved by the order passed by the Single 
B 
Judge both the appellant and respondent No.7 filed LPAs. 
The Division Bench of the High

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