http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3  

CASE NO.: Appeal (civil)  2871 of 2008

PETITIONER: Poonam Kumari

RESPONDENT: Jai Prakash Pandey & Ors

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 21/04/2008

BENCH: Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT & P. SATHASIVAM

JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T  REPORTABLE

CIVIL APPEAL NO.   2871 OF 2008 (Arising out of SLP (C) NO.14039 of 2004)

Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1.      Leave granted.         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:

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 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 prepared a select list on merits  in the following order: 1.      Smt. Poonam Kumar-Appellant,  2.      Shri Dinesh Kumar Singh; and 3.      Shri Anil Kumar.  

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 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  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 as a dealer. In the Writ petition appellant was  also impleaded as a party. However, no notice was served on

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3  

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 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 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 (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 as the Court may deem fit and just on  her application.

Regard being had to the circumstances of  this case if an application is filed for  consideration of the writ court within 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 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 Petition was allowed, there was no necessity for  changing the ultimate decision.  The Appellant filed the LPA  401 of 2004 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  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  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 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 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.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3  

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 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  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 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  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.  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.