# Ansar Ali v. Union of India & Ors

- **Citation:** (2020) 8 ILRA 160
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2019-08-13
- **Case number:** Writ-C No. 24484 of 2019
- **Bench:** Ramesh Sinha, Ajit Kumar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ansar-ali-v-union-of-india-ors-45340
- **Pages:** 13

## Headnote

A. Constitution of India - Article 14 -
Natural Justice - Non-speaking and cryptic
order - Legality - In order to secure fairness
and to prevent miscarriage of justice, the
authorities discharging function should follow
very accurate and proceedings conforming to
the norms of natural justice - An order
without well founded reason is like skeleton
which is neither identifiable for want of a
body cover nor, enforceable for want of
character it must have in it essentially - Held,
the orders passed by the authorities are not
only non-speaking unreasoned and cryptic
one but also cannot otherwise pass test of
Article 14 of the Constitution. (Para 28, 29
and 33)
Writ Petition allowed (E-1)
Cases relied on :-

## Text

160 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

22. It further appears that the Vice
Chancellor initially stayed the elections,
but without ensuring compliance to
Statute 13.05(e) has withdrawn his earlier
orders restricting the holding of elections.
The Vice Chancellor does not appear to
have examined the implication of non
observance of clause 13.05(e) while
passing the subsequent order.

23. In light of discussions and
deliberations made above, it is held that
obtaining of prior permission from the
Vice Chancellor before affecting any
change in constitution of management of
an
affiliated
college
would
be
impermissible in law. Consequently, the
amendment made in the constitution of
management on 11.11.2016 is not liable
to be sustained and is quashed. The Vice
Chancellor,
therefore,
shall
pass
necessary consequential orders as may be
warranted in law within a period of two
months from the date of presentation of
certified copy of this order.

24. Writ petition is allowed. No
order is passed as to costs.
----------
(2020)08ILR A160
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 13.08.2019

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAMESH SINHA, J.
THE HON'BLE AJIT KUMAR, J.

Writ-C No. 24484 of 2019
Connected with
Writ -C No. 26050 of 2019 and other cases

Ansar Ali ...Petitioner
Versus
Union of India & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Abhitab Kumar Tiwari

Counsel for the Respondents:
A.S.G.I., Sri Ishan Shishu, Sri Vikas
Budhwar

A. Constitution of India - Article 14 -
Natural Justice - Non-speaking and cryptic
order - Legality - In order to secure fairness
and to prevent miscarriage of justice, the
authorities discharging function should follow
very accurate and proceedings conforming to
the norms of natural justice - An order
without well founded reason is like skeleton
which is neither identifiable for want of a
body cover nor, enforceable for want of
character it must have in it essentially - Held,
the orders passed by the authorities are not
only non-speaking unreasoned and cryptic
one but also cannot otherwise pass test of
Article 14 of the Constitution. (Para 28, 29
and 33)
Writ Petition allowed (E-1)
Cases relied on :-
1. Chairman, Disciplinary Authority, Rani
Lakshmi Bai Kshetriya Gramin Bank Vs
Jagdish Sharan Varshney & ors.(2009) 4 SCC
240
2. Punjab State Electricity Board & ors. Vs Jit
Singh (2009) 13 SCC 118
3. Dharampal Satyapal Ltd. Vs. Deputy
commissioner of Central Excise, Gauhati &
ors.(2015) 8 SCC 519
4. Rashmi Metaliks Limited & anr. Vs Kolkata
Metropolitan Development Authority & ors.,
(2013) 10 SCC 95
5. T.P.Senkumar. IPS Vs UOI 7& ors., (2017)
6 SCC 801
6. Mangalam Organics Ltd. Vs U.O.I. (2017) 7
SCC 221

(Delivered by Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha, J.
 Hon'ble Ajit Kumar, J.)
8 All. Ansar Ali Vs. Union of India & Ors.
161

1. Heard Sri Ravi Kant, learned
Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Tarun
Agarwal, learned Advocate, Sri A.K.Tiwari,
Sri Santosh Dwivedi, Sri S.K.Sharma, Sri
Dharmendra
Singh
and
Sri
Ashish
Malhotra,
learned
counsels
for
the
petitioners and Sri Vikas Budhwar, learned
Advocate for the respondent Corporation
and learned counsel appearing on behalf of
the Union of India.

2. All these petitions since raise
common question of law, have been
clubbed together and are being heard and
decided by this common judgment and
order.

3. All the petitioners in their
respective petitions have raised grievance
against the order passed by the authority
of Petroleum Corporation holding their
candidature to be ineligible after field
verification of the land and placing their
candidature in category/ Group-3 which
according to the guidelines are to be
considered subject to condition that the
other competing candidates do not
qualify in first two categories called
Group 1 and Group 2.

4. The basic grievance raised by the
petitioners is that the order impugned by
which their candidature has come to be
rejected in the first two categories
holding them ineligible, is absolutely
non- speaking and cryptic order as
ground assigned is Land Evaluation
Committee visited the site and found the
same not meet the required norms.

5. According to learned Advocates
appearing on behalf of the petitioners
passing of such an order having adverse
consequences upon the interest and rights
of
the
petitioners
as
competing
contender, is arbitrary and hit by Article
14 of the Constitution. It is also argued
that even within the legitimate sphere of
authority taking administrative decision,
the decision must reflect consideration of
claims on merits. In a nutshell, the action
of the respondent is sought to be
judicially reviewed on the ground of lack
of just and fair play at the end of the
authorities
while
evaluating
the
candidature
of
the
petitioners
in
connection
with
respective
advertisements for allotment of retail
outlet dealership by oil companies.

6. Before we proceed to examine
the legality of the action assailed in this
bunch of writ petitions, it is necessary to
refer to the facts of the case in order to
appreciate the controversy on facts. Since
in all the writ petitions, more or less facts
are identical, for convenience we are
referring to the facts as detailed out in
Writ Petition No. 24484 of 2019 filed by
one Ansar Ali. We have further reasons
to refer to the facts of this case because
learned counsel for the respondents Sri
Budhwar has placed instructions obtained
by him in respect of this case only.

7. Respondent Hindustan Petroleum
Corporation Ltd. (for short "Petroleum
Corporation") issued an advertisement on
25.11.2018 inviting online applications for
retail outlet dealership at a site between
Kilometer Stone 26 and 29 at Meerut-Shamli
Raod , National Highway 709A (Old SH-82)
in district Meerut in the open category. Last
date for submission of form was 24th
December, 2018.

8. Out of three locations for which
applications were invited under the above
advertisement, the petitioner made an
application for the site at serial no. 1538
162 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
of the advertisement for which selection
was to be done by way of draw of lots
and the total area of the land required
was 1575 square meters with a frontage
of 35 metres wide and depth of 45
meters. While petitioner applied online
by
way
of
online
submission
of
application, the petitioner offered plot no.
1117 situate at village Baparasi, Pargana,
Tehsil and District Meerut with area of
1575 square meters and with 35 meters
and with a 35 meters wide frontage and
45 meters in depth as the said land fell on
the location for which advertisement was
made.

9. The land offered by the petitioner
was obtained by him on the basis of a
registered lease deed for a period of 20
years executed by original tenure holder,
Kartar Singh on 24.12.2018 itself, copy
whereof has been filed as Annexure 3 to
the writ petition.

10. In the draw of lots that was held
as per scheduled on 11th February,,
2019, the petitioner came to be selected
and the Corporation intimated selection
vide letter dated 16th February, 2019 and
the respondent Corporation called it out
to be preliminary intimation of the
selection for retail outlet dealership. The
letter is reproduced hereunder.

"Ref: 15457034924695

Date: 16-Feb-2019

To,

Mr. ANSAR ALI

Address:
VILLAGE
KALCHHINA,

TEHSIL MODINAGAR,

U.P.

District :GHAZIABAD

State:UTTAR PRADESH

Pin Code: 245304

Dear Sir,

SUBJECT:
RESULT
OF
DRAW
OF
LOTS
(FOR
RETAIL
OUTLET DEALERSHIP)

Name of Location : BETWEEN
KM STONE 26 TO 20 ON MEERUT
SHAMLI ROAD NH 709A (OLD SH-82),
Category OPEN

Name of District: MEERUT,
State UTTAR PRADESH

We are pleased to inform you
that based on DRAW OF LOTS for
selection of Retail Outlet dealership for
the above location held on 11-Feb-2019
at the venue BROADWAY INN, 1/9,
GARH ROADH, MEERUT (UP) 250 004
(CONTACT NO. 0121-4200300 at 09:30
AM you have been declared as selected.

This is only a preliminary
intimation towards your selection for
Retail Outlet dealership. However, the
award of the dealership is subject to
compliance of terms and conditions of
the Corporation in this regard.

Thanking you.

Yours faithfully

For
Hindustan
Petroleum
Corporation Ltd.

SANJAY NAGPAL

Heard of Regional Office

Meerut Retail Regional Office,

Hindustan
Petroleum
Corporation Limited,

495/1/2Nd Floor,

Rpg Tower,

University Road,

Mangal Pandey Nagar,

Meerut-250004

0121-3323915,9412221541,
941222544"

11. Yet another letter issued in the
same date further required to the
petitioner to remit an amount of Rs.
50,000/- towards initial security and to
8 All. Ansar Ali Vs. Union of India & Ors.
163
supply his documents within 10 days at
the address mentioned in the letter. The
main
document
regarding
which
controversy has arisen relates to item no.
4,5 and 6, however, for convenience we
are reproducing the entire letter dated
16th February, 2019.

Ref:15457034924695

Date: 16th Feb-2019

To,

Mr. ANSAR ALI

Address:VILLAGE
KALCHHINA,

TEHSIL MODINAGAR,

DISTRICT GHAZIABAD,

U.P.

District: GHAZIABAD

State:UTTAR PRADESH

Pin Code: 245304

Subject: Application for award
of RO dealership at BETWEEN KM
STONE 26 TO 29 ON MEERUTSHAMLI ROAD NH709A (OLD SH82)District MEERUT Under OPEN
category Advertised on 25-Nov-2018

Dear Sir,

Please refer to your online
application
reference
number
15457034924695 submitted for award of
the subject RO dealership.

Please
also
refer
to
the
Brochure
on
Retail
Outlet
dealer
selection application for the subject
location and available on the portal
https://www. Petrolpumdealerchayan.in/.

We are pleased to inform you
that you have been declared as successful
candidate in the DRAW OF LOTS
conducted on 11-Feb-2019 for selection
of RO dealership at the subject location.

You are requested to remit
online Rs. 50000.00, towards initial
Security Deposit (To pay click here or
login
to
https://www.
Petrolpumdealerchayan.in/.) and submit
the set of documents as specified below
within 10 days at the address mentioned
below for processing your application for
award of Retail Outlet dealership at the
above location.

Documents applicable for all
category:

1. Notarized Affidavit by the
applicant as per Appendix-X A/ X B
(standard Affidavit), as applicable

2. Proof of age (date of birth)
i.e.- Self Attested copy of 10th Std. Board
Certificate / Secondary School Leaving
Certificate / Birth Certificate / Passport/
Identity
card
issued
by
Election
Commission/Affidavait
for
age
(Original).

3.
Prrof
of
education
qualification i.e. -Self Attested Copy of
Certificate of passing 10th Std. Issued by
a Board / School conducting the
examination or equivalent.

4. Appendix-III B (Advocate's
letter) along with Appendix-III A (for
offer of land) if applicable.

5. Copy of land documents in
support of ownership/lease rights.

6. Sketch of the offered land
with dimension.

7. Proof of SKO allocation &
copy of dealership agreement in case you
are an existing unviable SKO Dealer.

Verification of all attested
photo copies shall be done with the
original documents during the Field
Verification of Credentials (FVC).

It is expected that you are in
possession
of
original
documents
wherever photo copies of documents are
submitted.

Please
note
that
your
candidature is liable to be canclled in
case initial Security Deposit is not
remitted or the documents listed above
164 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
are not submitted within 10 days from the
date of this intimation.

Your candidature is liable to be
rejected if you are not able to present the
original documents at the time of FVC on
the designated date and time or during
the FVC if it is found that the information
submitted
by
you
in
your
online
application
is
false/
incorrect/misrepresented affecting your
eleigibility.

Note:
Documents
can
be
submitted
at
the
below
mentioned
address of the Regional Office between
10 am to 5 pm on any working day. In
case the last date for submission of
documents happens to be a Holiday for
the Regional Office, Documents can be
submitted on the next working day.

Thanking you

Yours faithfully

For
Hindustan
petroleum
corporation Ltd.

SANJAY NAGPAL

Heard of Regional Office

Meerut Retail Regional Office,

Hindustan
Petroleum
Corporation Limited,

495/1

2Nd Floor,

RPG Tower,

University Road,

Mangal Pandey Nagar,

Meerut-250004

0121-3323915,
9412221541,
941222544"

(Emphasis added)

12. The petitioner deposited the
amount of security as required under the
letter above and submitted all the
documents within time before respondent
no. 3. The petitioner then was intimated
vide letter dated 24th May, 2009 that
Field Verification of Credentials (for
short "FVC") will be done on 3rd April,
2019 on the site of land and the petitioner
was
required
to
be
present
with
documents relating to the land. Field
verification
was
done
regarding
credentials and also spot verification of
the land in presence of the petitioners and
then thereafter no communication was
made with petitioner by Corporation for
more than three months and while
petitioner was expecting good news, he
was surprised by the Corporation by
issuing a letter dated 21st June, 2019
informing that his candidature has not
been found eligible as Land Evaluation
Committee after visiting the site on the
scheduled date, did not find the land to
be meeting the required norms.

13. For better appreciation of the
order and the legal arguments as we have
quoted in the initial part of the judgment,
we reproduced the order impugned dated
21st June, 2019 passed by respondent
Petroleum Corporation.

"Ref: 15457034924695

Date: 21-Jun-2019

To,

Mr. Ansar Ali

Address:VILLAGE
KALCHHINA,

TEHSIL MODINAGAR,

DISTRICT GHAZIBAD,

U.P.

District: GHAZIBAD

State:UTTAR PRADESH

Pin Code: 245304

Subject: Application for award
of RO dealership at BETWEEN KM
STAONE 26 TO 29 ON MEERUT
SHAMLI ROAD NH709A (OLD SH-82)
DISTRICT
MEERUT
under
OPEN
category Advertised on 25 Nov, 2018
8 All. Ansar Ali Vs. Union of India & Ors.
165

Dear Sir,

1.
Please
refer
to
your
application received by us application
form No. 15457034924695 on the subject
and our letter dated 24-Mar-2019
informing you about the visit of Land
Evaluation committee of evaluation of
your offered land.

2. This is to inform you that
the Land Evaluation Committee visited
the site offered by you on 03-Apr-2019
and found the same to be not meeting
the required norms.

3. In view of above, we regret
to inform you that your candidature has
been found ineligible. However, your
candidature may get considered for
selection along with Group 3 applicants
as per guidelines.

Thanking you

Yours faithfully,

For
Hindustan
Petroleum
Corporation Ltd.

Sanjay Nagpal

Head of Regional Office

Meerut Retail Regional Office,

Hindustan
Petroleum
Corporation Limited,

495/1,

2Nd Floor,

Rpg Tower

University Road,

Mangal Pandey nagar,

Meerut-250004

9412221544"
 (Emphasis added)

14. At the stage, we also find it
necessary to refer the guidelines issued
by Petroleum Corporation for selection
of retail outlet dealership relating to the
land required by the Corporation for
setting up retail outlet petrol pump. The
relevant extract of the guidelines is
reproduced hereunder:

"(V) Hkwfe 1⁄4lHkh Jsf.k;ksa dks ykxw1⁄2%

vkosnu QkeZ esa vkosndks n~okjk
izLrkfor Hkwfe vFkok vizLrkfor Hkwfe ds vk/kkj
ij vkosndksa dks 3 lewgksa esa fuEukuqlkj oxhZd`r
fd;k tk,xk%&

xzqi 1% vkosndksa ds ikl foKkfir
yksds'ku@,fj;k esa ekfydkuk gd esa@U;wure
19 o"kZ 11 ekg dh vof/k ds fy, nh?kZ vof/k
yht ij Hkwfe dk mi;qDr VqdM+k gks ;k rsy
foi.ku daiuh n~okjk fn;s x, foKkiu ds
vuqlkj gksA

xzqi 2% vkosndksa ds ikl mi;qDr
Hkwfe [kjhnus ds fy, ;k U;wure 19 o"kZ 11 ekg
dh vof/k ds fy, nh?kZ vof/k yht dk iDdk
izLrko gks ;k rsy foi.ku daiuh n~okjk fn;s
x;s foKkiu ds vuqlkj gksA

xzqi 3% ftu vkosndksa us vius
vkosnu esa Hkwfe izLrkfor ugha dh gSA

xzqi 3 ds rgr vkosnu rHkh izkslSl
fd, tk,axs@Hkwfe dk izLrko nsus dks dgk
tk,xk tc dksbZ ik= vkosnd ugha ik;k tkrk
gS ;k xzqi 1 vkSj 2 ds rgr fdlh vkosnd dk
p;u ugha gksrk gSA

;fn xzqi 1 vkSj xzqi 2 ds varxZr
vkus okys lHkh vkosndksa dh izLrkfor Hkwfe
mi;qDr ugha ik;h tkrh gS ;k vis{kkvksa dks iwjk
ugha djrh gS rc bu xzqi 1 vkSj xzqi 2 ds
vkosndksa ds lkFk&lkFk xzqi 3 ds vkosndksa
1⁄4ftUgksaus vkosnu ds lkFk Hkwfe izLrkfor ugha dh
gS1⁄2
dks
rsy
foi.ku
daifu;ksa
n~okjk
,l,e,l@bZesy ds ek/;e ls lwpuk i= tkjh
gksus dh rkjh[k ls 3 ekg ds vanj foKkfir
LFkkuksa@nk;js esa mi;qDr Hkwfe dk izLrko nsus
dks dgk tk,xkA ;fn vkosnd fu/kkZfjr vof/k
esa mi;qDr Hkwfe miyC/k djus esa foQy jgrk gS
;k miyC/k djk;s tkus okyh Hkwfe fu/kkZfjr
ekunaMks dks iwjk ugha djrh gS rks vkosnu
fujLr dj fn;k tk,xkA

izLrkfor Hkwfe ds fy, vU; 'krsZa
fuEukuqlkj gS%&

1⁄4d1⁄2 vkosnu dh rkjh[k dks vkosnd
ds ikl Hkwfe miyC/k gksuh pkfg, vkSj foKkiu
dh rkjh[k dks ;k mlds ckn dh rkjh[k esa
1⁄4ijarq vkosnu dh rkjh[k ds ckn ugh1⁄2 19 o"kZ
166 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
11 ekg ds U;wure yht 1⁄4tSlk dh lacaf/kr rsy
daiuh n~okjk foKkiu fd;k x;k gks1⁄2 ij gksuh
pkfg,A

1⁄4[k1⁄2 ;fn izLrkfor Hkwfe nh?kZ vof/k
yht ij gS rks dkWiZl QaM ;kstuk] vU;
dkWifj'ku ds LokfeRo ds LFkyksa 1⁄4^^,^^@^^lhlh^^
LFky1⁄2 ds vUrxZr foKkfir yksds'kuksa ds fy,
yht djkj esa mi&yht dk izko/kku gksuk
pkfg,A"
 (Emphasis added)

15. Before we proceed further to
examine the guidelines and test the order
passed by the respondent Corporation for
rejecting
the
candidature
of
the
petitioner, we would also like to refer to
the instructions placed before this Court
by Sri Vikash Budhwar, learned counsel
appearing on behalf of respondent
Corporation in the form a piece of paper.
This piece of paper is nothing but field
verification report regarding lay out of
land offered by petitioner in respect of
the retail outlet dealership at serial no.
1538. The report carries as we peruse,
three details as far as spot inspection is
concerned: firstly the address of the site
condition land; Secondly marked details
of the site i.e. distance from the nearest
kilometer stone or any other permanent
land mark; and thirdly a hand sketched
lay out of the land.

16. After these three collumns the
recital in the report is in the form of
undertaking
by
the
applicant.
Undertaking is typed one in the report
which is on a printed format and bears
signatures of the petitioner and three
members
of
the
Land
Evaluation
Committee except for the hand sketched
map. The entire narrative of the report
dated 25th March, 2019 is reproduced
hereunder for its better appreciation:

Layout sketch of land
offered by the appellant

Location

District: Meerut

Sr. No. 1538

State: U.P

Category: Open

Land Details: Khasra No. 1117,
village
Baparasi,
Tehsil
Sardana,
District Meerut

Name of Applicant: Ansar Ali

Site Address (As mentioned in
the application form): Khasra No. 1117,
Villlage
Baparsi,
Tehsil
Sardhana,
District Meerut.

Landmark
details
(distance
from nearest Km stone or any other
permanent landmark/ structure nearest to
the starting point of the site)

Layout Sketch of land offered
by the candidate with approximate
dimensions
(All
dimensions
to
be
mentioned in Meters.) (Hand Sketched
lay out)

I hereby confirm that the above
mentioned details of the plot offered by
me are correct and site has been
inspected by the Company Officials as
mentioned below. Further I also confirm
that:

1. Offered land is of required
dimension
and
abutting
the
Road
boundary, after leaving Right of Way
(ROW) line of the road.

II. The offered land is also not
notified for acquisition.

III. Land owner is in possession
of the land from the beginning/ edge of
ROW line.

I also understand that in case
any of the details mentioned above are
found incorrect or the site is found
unsuitable by the Corporation for any
8 All. Ansar Ali Vs. Union of India & Ors.
167
reason whatsoever then I would have no
claim on the dealership of this location.

Name & Signature of the
applicant/Representative of applicant

Date: 25/03/2019 Member
1

Member 2
Member 3

(In case of NH)

17. From the perusal of the above
report as quoted above, it transpires that
the site of the land was visited on 25th
March, 2019 and not on 3rd April, 2019
as stated in letter dated 24th March, 2019
annexure 5 to the writ petition. From the
above facts as instruction have been
paced before this Court one thing at least
comes out very clear that no spot
inspection was carried out on 3rd April,
2019 as claimed by the respondents, it
was in fact conducted on 25th March,
2019 which bears signatures of the
present
petitioner,
Ansar
Ali
and
endorsement of the date is 25th March,
2019. Since petitioner has not questioned
the spot inspection conducted on 25th
March, 2019 and has not taken stand that
no spot inspection was conducted on 3rd
April, 2019 and since the documents to
spot
inspection
bears
signature
of
petitioner we presume that it is on 25th
March, 2019 with the consent of the
petitioner that spot inspection was done
by the Land Evaluation Committee and
proceed to decide the case on the said
basis.

18. From the perusal of the
guidelines as quoted hereinabove in this
judgment, we find that so far as offer of
land is concerned three categories have
been provided for; Category One is
called Group 1 in which land offered
must be claimed by the applicant with
minimum lease of 19 years and 11
months of the land or piece of land on the
site advertised by the Corporation;
category two called as Group 2 where
applicant has firm proposal of lease to be
executed in his favour for a minimum
period of 19 years and 11 months; and
category three is called as Group-3 is in
respect of the candidates who have not
made any offer of land. It is further
provided under the guidelines that
applications under Group 3 shall be
processed and will be assigned to give
offer of land when no candidate is found
eligible and not selected in Group 1 and
Group 2 category. Since petitioner in the
present case had registered lease in his
favour of the land in question for period
of 20 years at annual premium of Rs.
6,000/- as rent executed on 24.12.2018
and document thereof was submitted by
the petitioner as offer of land, it
amounted a firm offer of land in Group 1
category. In draw of lots, the petitioner
was selected and was directed to submit
documents which petitioner submitted
within the prescribed time. The Land
Evaluation
Committee
thereafter
proceeded to evaluate credentials of the
petitioner as well as the land situation on
the spot so as to get the first hand
assessment as to whether land of which
offer has been made by candidate is an
ideal site to set a petrol pump or not.

19. From the bare reading of the
report of spot inspection which has been
placed before the Court and quoted
hereinabove in this order, we find that the
address of the land offered and the land
mark of Kilometer stone between 27 to
28 is same as is required under the
advertisement and in the lay out sketched
map is of the land offered by the present
applicant with proximate dimension has
been shown. The report does not disclose
168 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
as to how the measurement has been
carried out of the spot, nor it disclose as
to what scale was applied to measure the
land to justify particularly the dimensions
in respect of frontage and depth as
opening area and the depth area of the
land in question at the located site on a
piece of A-4 size paper.

20. From bare perusal of the report,
we find that opening of the plot offered
by the petitioner is 35 meters on front on
national highway no. 709-A and the
depth is shown as 45 meters. What
further we find that the distance between
crossing of 101 meters. If we compare
this report with that of the details as
contained in advertisement for serial no.
1358 land site in question, we find that
minimum dimension required is in
respect of frontage, depth and total area
in column no. 8. There is no other depth
or area or distance required, so according
to us as far as dimension part is
concerned vide column 8, requirement of
measurement is same as has come to be
reported in the report in hand sketched
map. The report is signed by three
members of the committee but we do not
know who at the three members was
expert with technical skills to conduct
measurement and who prepared the hand
sketched map in the report, but we
noticed that the report is in fact in the
form of format in column nos. 1,2 and 3
encircled by a rectangle, a blank space
required to be filled in only and rest of
the contents are in an already typed
format including the undertaking on
which applicant has to sign. Four
conditions
which
are
part
of
the
undertaking are: that offered land as per
required dimension must be abutting the
road boundary with the offered land after
leaving right of way line of the road; the
offered land is not under any notification
for acquisition; the applicant/land owner
is in possession of the land; and there is
other land including Government land
between the land offered and the right of
way. If any of the details as noted above
is found to be incorrect, the site was to be
held unsuitable by the Corporation and
the applicant would not have any claim
for the dealership on such location.

21. In the present case, we do not
find in the report that any of the four
conditions were violated nor, we do find
any remarks coming in the report that
land was not suitable for a/b/c on d
reason but according to the learned
counsel for the respondent this report has
formed the basis of the cancellation of
the candidature of the petitioner as
ineligible one.

22. The above being factual
position emerging out in the present case
we proceed to test the order impugned
and the legal arguments advanced by
learned counsel for the petitioners.

23. From the better perusal of the
order that has been passed holding the
petitioner not to be eligible as far as his
candidature is concerned, the retail outlet
dealership, it is clear that the Land
Evaluation Committee vested on 3rd
April, 2019 and found the same not
meeting required norms. We have not
been apprised of any report dated 3rd
April, 2019 by learned counsel for the
respondent though he was given time to
have instructions in the matter and the
instruction that has been placed before us
is report dated 25th March, 2019 as we
have quoted above and have also
discussed hereinabove. This report does
no record any recital in the form of
8 All. Ansar Ali Vs. Union of India & Ors.
169
opinion of expert regarding situation of
and and its suitability is nothing but
contains details of land and a hand
sketched map prepared on the spot with
the
details
of
dimensions
and
measurement.

24. The ground of attack is that the
order is absolutely non speaking as to
what is the report of the Land Evaluation
Committee or what is the opinion of
Land Evaluation
Committee
in
its
assessment, that has rendered site offered
not meeting the required norms, have not
been disclosed in the order impugned. It
is alleged that the order has been passed
on the basis of same report of the Land
Evaluation Committee so therefore it was
incumbent upon the respondent authority
to have discussed the report in this order
to make it not only speaking order but
reasoned order as well.

25. As we have noticed that it is the
Land Evaluation Committee's report
dated 25th March, 2019 that has been
placed before us and there is no
instruction regarding any report dated 3rd
April, 2019, we can safely conclude that
there was no such report at all and the
report, before Corporation, was dated
25th March, 2019 only. From the report
dated 25th March, 2019, we do not find
any lacking of requirement in terms of
the dimensions and measurement of the
land in question while comparing it with
required
dimensions
and
the
measurement provided vide column 8 of
the located site at serial no. 1538 of the
advertisement the required opening of the
plot 35 meter wide is there in the report
and depth of 45 meter which is also there
in the report. There was requirement of
total measurement of the land in terms of
area as 1575 of plot of and the area of
land offered is not disputed in the report.
The distance of situation where plot is
required to situate is also not disputed in
the report. The area and the plot is totally
identifiable as per the report. We further
find that all four conditions mentioned in
the report in the form of undertaking by
the petitioner are also met and there is
nothing in the report adverse to the same.
The offered land is not under any notice
of compulsory acquisition; the possession
of the land holder is not disputed and
there is no other land between land
offered and the right of way (ROW).
Thus if said report was placed before the
authority, we fail to understand why the
said report was not considered and if any
further report was obtained as has come
to be mentioned in the order dated 3rd
April, 2019, both the reports should have
been discussed, evaluated and compared
as a rule of procedure by the respondents
before rejecting the candidature of the
petitioner holding him ineligible on the
basis of the report of the Land Evaluation
Committee subsequently obtained on 3rd
April, 2019 if any.

26. In our considered opinion,
justice and fair play required this
procedure to be mandatory one. Even
otherwise, we are in the rule of law
society and public sector undertakings, or
Corporations are more under bounden
duty to discharge function in just and fair
manner. Every subject in a welfare state
is looking for equality in terms of equal
treatment if identically placed. If petrol
pump dealership is being offered by
public sector undertakings from open
markets inviting applications from the
people and the candidates come to be
selected in the draw of lots, the
cancellation of candidature of such
candidates should be preceded by a
170 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
thorough examination of documents,
proper
evaluation
and
proper
spot
inspection
of
the
land
and
due
verification of the credentials placed
before Corporation in respect the land
site offered by such candidates. We may
further hold that in such matters where
on a printed format undertaking is taken
and that too in a language with which
locals may not be well conversant as
being not highly qualified as in the
present case language was in English, it
was an obligation cast upon authority of
a public sector undertaking to have
apprised at least petitioners of the
grounds and thus in that process the
petitioners should have been supplied
with the report so as to apprise them of
the details and the reasons assigned by
the Land Evaluation Committee for
holding that site offered was not suitable
for the reasons a/b/c or d. However, all
this we find lacking in the orders
impugned in all these writ petitions.

27. It has been held in case of
Chairman, Disciplinary Authority, Rani
Lakshmi Bai Kshetriya Gramin Bank
v. Jagdish Sharan Varshney and
Others (2009) 4 SCC 240 that unless
reasons are disclosed how can the person
know whether authority has applied its
mind or not ? Giving all reasons
minimize the chances of arbitrariness.
Again in the case of Punjab State
Electricity Board and Others v. Jit
Singh (2009) 13 SCC 118, the Apex
Court while testing the order passed by
the State Electricity Board which was
assailed on the ground of arbitrary one as
being sans reasons, observed that fair
play requires recording precise and
cogent reasons when an order affects
rights of the citizen and again in the case
of Dharampal Satyapal Limited v.
Deputy
commissioner
of
Central
Excise, Gauhati and Others (2015) 8
SCC 519 the Apex Court held that the
principles of natural justice developed
over a period of time and which is still in
vogue and valid even today are: (i) rule
against bias, i.e. nemo debet esse iudex
in causa sua; and (ii) opportunity of
being heard to the party concerned, i.e.
audi alteram partem. These are known as
principles of natural justice. To these
principles a third principle is added,
which is of recent origin. It is duty to give
reasons in support of decision, namely,
passing of a 'reasoned order'.

28. The Court further proceeded to
hold that in order to secure fairness and
to prevent miscarriage of justice, the
authorities discharging function should
follow very accurate and proceedings
conforming to the norms of natural
justice and the Court observed that
primarily these basics of dispensation of
justice though were mandatory for
discharge for judicial and quasi judicial
functions but later have come to be
extended even to those who are involved
in administrative decision making and
may not necessarily discharging judicial
or quasi judicial functions. The Court
observed that these principles are a kind
of code of fair administrative procedure.
In this context, procedure is not a matter
of secondary importance as it is only by
procedural
fairness
shown
in
the
decision making that decision becomes
acceptable. In its proper sense, thus,
natural justice would mean the natural
sense of what is right and wrong.

29. An order without well founded
reason is like skeleton which is neither
identifiable for want of a body cover nor,
enforceable for want of character it must
8 All. Ansar Ali Vs. Union of India & Ors.
171
have in it essentially. In order to infuse
life in an order to make it legally
enforceable
it
must
have
the
characteristic of being taken as a
reasoned and speaking one to pass the
test of Article 14 of the Constitution, one
of the most acclaimed and cherished of
the fundamental rights recognized under
the
Indian
Constitution.
What
is,
therefore, fundamental for an order or an
action to make it sustainable is to ensure
it to be devoid of any arbitrariness.

30. In case of Rashmi Metaliks
Limited and Another v. Kolkata
Metropolitan Development Authority
and Others, (2013) 10 SCC 95,
considering the aspect of judicial review
in case of administrative action, the Apex
Court held that if the reasons are not
contained in the order, it is bad.

31.

Again
in
the
case
of
T.P.Senkumar. IPS v. Union of India
and Others, (2017) 6 SCC 801, the
Apex
Court
has
held
that
an
administrative order must be judged by
reason mentioned therein and cannot
supplemented by the reason through
affidavit or otherwise in subsequent court
proceedings.

32. Further in the case of
Mangalam Organics Ltd. v. Union
of India (2017) 7 SCC 221 vide
taking note of the limited scope of
judicial
review
of
administrative
action, the Court did carve out an
exception if an order is passed with
/an
extraneous
purpose,
upon
extraneous consideration or arbitrary
without applying its mind to the
relevant consideration or were it is
not guided by norms which are
relevant
to
the
object
already
achieved under Artice 14 of the
Constitution.

33. In view of above settled legal
position as have come to be emerged and
applying the same to the present set of
facts involved in the case in hand and in
the connected matters, we find that the
orders passed by the authorities in
respective petitions are not only non
speaking unreasoned and cryptic one but
also cannot otherwise pass test of Article
14 of the Constitution.

34. In our considered opinion while
rule of personal hearing may not be a
compulsory rule in every case but rule of
assigning reason while passing an order
on the basis of some adverse report is
mandatory for the authority to make the
order legally enforceable.

35. Accordingly, we are setting
aside the orders impugned canceling the
candidature
of
the
petitioners
in
respective writ petitions for retail outlet
dealership.

36. We are accordingly further
directing the authorities to revisit the
matter and reconsider the reports after
supplying copy thereof to the respective
petitioners and inviting their objections
upon the same. Necessary requisite
document
as
have
been
directed
hereinabove shall be supplied to the
petitioner within period of two weeks
from the date of production of certified
copy of this order and the petitioners
shall be at liberty to file their objection
within further period of two weeks and
after receiving objection of the respective
petitioners, respondent shall proceed to
decide the matter within further period of
four weeks by means of reasoned and
speaking order.
172 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

37. However, we may hasten to add
that in all these writ petitions the only
ground taken for passing the order is that
the offer of land made by the respective
petitioners did not meet the requirement
as per brochure and, therefore, it will be
open for the respondent to revisit the
matter from that angle only and, if
otherwise, after due evaluation and
meeting objection of the petitioners, they
are found suitable, their candidature on
other norms shall not be cancelled on any
fresh ground.

38. With the aforesaid observations
and directions, writ petitions are allowed,
with no order as to cost.
----------
(2020)08ILR A172
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 16.10.2019

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAMESH SINHA, J.
THE HON'BLE AJIT KUMAR, J.

Writ C No. 29010 of 2008

The Manager Birju Yadav, Inarman
Yadav
Purva
Madhyamik
Vidyalay,
Chakaundhi, Mau ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Naveen Srivastava

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

A.
Civil
Law
-
MPLAD
Fund
-
Disbursement for the Construction of
School - Misrepresentation or Fraud -
Merely because certain part of the land has
fallen in the adjoining village, it will not
amount to mis-representation or fraud on the
part of the petitioner - No whisper anywhere
that any enquiry was made from the then
Member of Parliament as to under what
circumstances the recommendation was made
- Held, It was not open for the Collector to
take into account irrelevant considerations to
record
a
finding
of
fraud
and
misrepresentation
-
The
findings
is
completely misplaced and ill-founded. (Para 7
and 9)
B.
Civil
Law
-
MPLAD
Fund
-
Recommendation
of
Member
of
Parliament - Jurisdiction of Administrative
Authority - A Member of Parliament in our
representative form of Government holds a
very
sacrosanct
position
-
His
recommendation cannot be a matter of
administrative enquiry unless he himself
complains of being misrepresented/ mislead.
(Para 8)

Held -

8. ...We may, therefore, hold that no
recommendation qua MPLAD if made by a
member of parliament for his constituency is
subject
to
enquiry
by
administrative
authorities unless the Member of Parliament
himself
asks
for
the
same,
however
monitoring
and
enquiry
regarding
consumption of fund released under MPLAD is
always subject to administrative enquiry in
the event of complaint. This is however, not
the case in hand.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha, J.)

1. Heard Sri Naveen Srivastava,
learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri
A.K. Roy, learned Additional Chief
Standing Counsel appearing for the
State-respondents. Perused the record.

2. By means of this petition under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
the petitioner has challenged the order
dated 10.5.2008 directing the petitioner
to pay Rs.5 lacs which was advanced
from the fund of Member of Parliament
for local development in a district (For