POONAM KUMARIversusJAI PRAKASH PANDEY & ORS.

                         [2008] 6 S.C.R. 740


A                         POONAM KUMARI
                                 v.
                 JAi PRAKASH PANDEY & ORS.
                  (Civil Appeal No: 2871 of 2008)
                          APRIL 21, 2008
B
       [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND P. SATHASIVAM, JJ.)                    •

         Constitution of India, 1950 -Article 136 - Dealership in
  respect of retail outlets of petrol pump - Selection of appellant
c by Dealer Selection Board (DSB) - Challenged in writ petition
  by respondent-Appellant not served with notice- Writ petition
  allowed and selection made by DSB quashed - LPA -
  Disposed of, with observation that appellant be granted liberty
  to file application for consideration of her case - Application
  by appellant - Single Judge of High Court held that though
D
  she was not afforded opportunity of hearing before allowing
  writ petition, there was no necessity for changing the ultimate     '
                                                                          .
  decision - Division Bench of Hfgh Court held that since matter
  was remitted to DSB for fresh consideration, there was no
  illegality in the order - Challenge to - Held: Matter to be
E considered by high officials of IOC - No interference called
  for-As procedural irregularities were noticed by Single Judge,
  consideration be made by Selection Committee nominated
  by GM, IOC.

F      Appellant was selected on the basis of interview for
  appointment of dealer in respect of certain retail outlets          I       •

  of petrol pumps and was issued Letter of intent on
  8.11.2001. According to appellant, she had made
  substantial investment in making retail outlet operational.
  The entire infrastructure was put up by IOC including the
G
  arrangement of the land, the oil tanks were installed and
  certain persons were employed as members of staff and
  with effect from 12.11.2001, appellant started operating the
  Retail Outlet.                                                      "'
H                                740
            POONAM KUMAR! v. JAi PRAKASH PANDEY & ORS.               741

      .,.            Respondent no.1, who was also one of the               A
            applicants and whose name did not figure in the select
            list, filed a writ petition in the High Court challenging the
            selection made by the Dealer Selection Board (DSB). The
            main allegation of Respondent no.1was that even though
            his father had made the land available to IOC, he was not       B
            given a preference in the matter of allotment and
            appointment as a dealer. In the Writ petition appellant was
            also impleaded as a party. However, no notice was served
            on her. The Writ Petition was allowed on 15.1.2004 and
            the selection made by the DSB was quashed. Since                c
J           appellant claimed that no notice was served on her and
            she was not in a position to place her case before Sirigle
            Judge who heard and allowed the Writ Petition,"'she ·filed
            LPA. After hearing the parties, the Division Bench
            disposed of the LPA observing that in the interest of
                                                                            D
            justice, the appellant should be granted liberty to file
     . '>   application for consideration of her case so that the Court
            could pass such orders as it may deem fit and just on her
            application and if an application is filed for consideration
            of the writ court within a week, this matter would be placed
            as a fresh case. Pursuant to the said order, an application     E
            was filed praying that the order dated 15.1.2004 in the Writ
            Petition be recalled.
                 Single Judge took up the matter and after noticing
            the grievance of the appellant held that though she was F
            not afforded the opportunity of hearing before allowing
     " '    the writ petition, there was no necessity for changing the
            ultimate decision. The Appellant filed the LPA questioning
            the said order. By the impugned order the Division Bench
            of the High Court held that since the matter has been
                                                                       G
,.          remitted to the DSB for fresh consideration, there was no
            illegality in the order.
      ~         In appeal to this Court, appellant contended that in
            view of the order passed by this Court in another case
            and on account of the fact that the appellant has made          H
    742       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2008] 6 S.C.R.


A huge investments and had made the retail outlet
  operational and it was functioning, without any reason
  the facility has been withdrawn and therefore, prayed that
  pending disposal of the matter she should be permitted
  to operate.
B      Respondent contended that noticing that there were ·
    several irregularities, the DSB was asked to reconsider
    the matter.
          Disposing of the appeal, the Court
C       HELD: It appears from the order of the Single judge
  that he found that there were certain procedural
  irregularities committed by the DSB and therefore a fresh
  consideration was warranted. The counsel of the IOC
  informed that the DSB is not in existence since 9.5.2002
D and further pointed out that in another case, the Court
  directed that the matter should be considered by high
  officials of IOC in its zonal office. While declining to
  interfere in the matter, because of the procedural lapses
  noticed by Single Judge, it is directed that instead of DSB,
E which is no longer in existence, in the line of what has
  been directed by this Court in another case, consideration
  should be made by the Selection Committee nominated
  by the General Manager, IOC, Bihar State Office, Patna,
  who is stated to be the State Head. The Committee is
F directed to deal with the matter expeditiously. [Paras 8-
  10] [745-G, H; 746-A, 8, C]                                         ..
        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
    2871 of 2008.
G        From the final Judgment and Order dated 07.04.2004 of
    the High Court of Judicature at Patna in LP.A. No. 409 of 2004.
         Himanshu Shekhar Jha and Rameshwar Prasad Goyal for
    the Appellant.
          Dr. R.G. Padia, Ranjan Mukherjee, S.C. Gho.sh, H.K. Puri,
H
                 POONAM KUMAR! v. JAi PRAKASH PANDEY & ORS.                  743
                           [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]

                .Priya Puri, S.K. Puri, V.M. Chauhan. TufaliA. Khan, B.K. Prasad,   A
                 M.P. Parmeshwaran and Shiv SagarTiwari for the Respondents.
                    "<rhe Judgment of the Court was delivered by
                     DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Leave granted.
    -..              .                                                              B
             .,     Challenge in this appeal is to the order of a Division Bench
            .,of the Patna High Court dismissing the Letters Patent appeal
              filed by the appellant.
                      2. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:
          ...                                                                       c
                    On 1.9.2000, the Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. (in short the
             'IOC') issued advertisement inviting applications for appointment
            ,of a dealer in respect of certain retail outlets (petrol pumps) in
           . various places including one in. Brahampur in State of Bihar.
             The appellant was one of the applicants. The applications were
             verified by IOC and the applications of all the eligible candidates    D
    -~
            were forWarded to the Dealer Selection Board (in short the
             'DSB') for making selection. The DSB issued interview letters
             to all those candidates who were found eligible. It considered
             the materials placed before it by the applicants and produced
             during interviews, and on the basis of the interview allegedly         E
             prepared a select list on merits in the following order:
                      1. Smt. Poonam Kumar-Appellant,
                      2. Sh/i Diriesh Kumar Singh; and
                      3. Shri Anil Kumar.                                           F
"    -I
                      On being placed at no.1 in the Select List, a letter of Intent
                was issued on 8.11.2001 and the necessary order was handed
                over to the appellant. She claims to have made substantial
                investments in making the Retail Outlet operational. The entire
                infrastructure was put up by IOC including the arrangement of G
                the land, the oil.tanks were installed and certain persons were
                employed as members of staff and with effect from 12.11.2001,
                appellant started operating the Retail Outlet
                     . One J.P. Pandey (Respondent no.1 ), who was also one of
                                                                                    H
    744       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                     (2008] 6 S.C.R.


A the applicants and whose name did not figure in the select list,
  filed a writ petition in the High Court challenging the selection
  made by the DSB. There the main allegation was that even
  though his father had made the land available to IOC, he was
  not given a preference in the matter of allotment and appointment
B as a dealer. In the Writ petition appellant was also impleaded
  as a party. However, no notice was served on her. By a judgment
  dated 15.1.2004 the Writ Petition was allowed and the selection
  made by the DSB was quashed. Since appellant claimed that
  no notice was served on her and she was not in a position to
C place her case before learned Single Judge who heard and
  allowed the Writ Petition, she filed LPA No.93 of 2004. On
  3.2.2004 after hearing the parties, the Division Bench disposed
  of the LPA observing as follows:
          "On record it is clear and apparent and some of the
D         Respondents were not before the Writ Court to make a
          submission for the simple reason that they were without
          notice.
          This Court is of the opinion that it would be expedient and
          appropriate in the interest of justice that the appellant
E         (respondent No. 6 in the Writ petition) is granted a liberty
          to apply for having the matter considered upon her case
          so that the Hon'ble Court may pass such orders 3S the
          Court may deem fit and just on her application.

F         Regard being had to the circumstances of this case if an
          application is filed for consideration of the writ court within   r   •

          a week, this matter will be placed as a fresh case."
       Pursuant to the said order, an application (MJC No.256 of
  2004) was filed praying that the order dated 15.1.2004 in the
G Writ Petition (C.W.J.C No. 14506 of 2001) be recalled.
        3. Learned Single Judge took up the matter on 3.3.2004
  and after noticing the grievance of the appellant held that though
  she was not afforded the opportunity of hearing before the Writ
H Petition was allowed, there was no necessity for changing the
       POONAM KUMARI v. JAi PRAKASH PANDEY & ORS.                        745
                 [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]

      ultimate decision. The Appellant filed the LPA 401 of 2004 A
      questioning the order passed. By the impugned order the
      Division Bench of the Patna High Court held that since the matter.
      has been remitted to the DSB for fresh consideration, there was
      no illegality in the order.

           4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that learned          B
      Single Judge accepted that the appellant had not got the
      opportunity of being heard. The earlier reasoning could not have
      been repeated to dismiss the application.

              5. It is pointed out that the appellant was placed at serial      c
      No.1 of the select list and had been given permission to operate
      retail outlet and had made huge investments and therefore her
      selection could not have been nullified by learned Single Judge.
      It is therefore submitted that the LPA should have been allowed.

            6. Learned counsel for the appellant has further pointed            D
~._   out that in view of the order passed by this Court, and on account
      of the fact that the appellant has made huge investments and
      had made the retail outlet operational and it was functioning,
      without any reason the facility has been withdrawn. It was,
      therefore, prayed that pending disposal of the matter she should          E
      be permitted to operate.
          7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents
      submitted that noticing that there were several irregularities, the
      DSB was asked to reconsider the matter.
                                                                                F
             8. It is pointed out that the writ petitioner had brought to the
      notice, in the writ petition, that his father had given land to IOC
      on lease for about thirty years with an option of further renewal
      for thirty years. It was, therefore, pleaded that preference ought
      to have been given to the writ-petitioner, but had not been really        G
      given. It appears from the order of the learned Single judge that
      he found that there were certain procedural irregularities
      committed by the DSB and therefore a fresh consideration was
      warranted.
            9. It is pointed out by learned counsel of the IOC that the         H
    746        SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2008] 6 S.C.R.


A   DSB is not in existence since 9.5.2002. It is further pointed out
    that in another case, the Court directed that the matter should
    be considered by high officials of IOC in its zonal office .
        . 10. While declining to interfere in the matter, because of
  the procedural lapses noticed by learned Single Judge, we
B direct that instead of DSB, which is no longer in existence, in
  the line of what has been directed by this Court in another case,
  we direct that consideration shall be made by the Selection
  Committee nominated by the General Manager, IOC, Bihar State
  Office, Patna, who is stated to be the State Head. Let the
C Committee deal with the matter expeditiously. Since the matter
  is pending long, we direct the Committee to consider the matter
  in its proper perspective, by taking into account all the materials
  already on record and to be placed by the parties. Let the
  exercise be completed within a period of four months from today.
D We make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on
  the merits of the case.
           11 .. Appeal is disposed of accordingly. No costs.
    D.G.                                        Appeal disposed of