# Gauri Garg v. I.O.C. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2023) 9 ILRA 492
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2023-08-07
- **Case number:** Writ-C No. 10049 of 2014
- **Bench:** Siddhartha Varma, Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/gauri-garg-v-i-o-c-ors-50821
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

Sri Prakash Padia, Sri Anand Tiwari, Sri Rajiv
Gupta, S.C.

Held:
As per the brochure issued by Indian Oil
Corporation,
the
evaluation
of
financial
soundness - particularly under the head of fixed
and movable assets - must be based on a
valuation report duly certified by a Government
Approved Valuer. In the absence of such a
report from either party, awarding marks under
that
head
was
impermissible.
The
word
"necessary" used in the brochure is to be
construed as "mandatory", and any deviation
renders the evaluation flawed. Hence, the
selection process undertaken without adhering
to this requirement was vitiated.

Case Law Discussed:

None cited directly in the judgment.

## Text

492 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
power in making a recommendation for
appointment of Authorized Controller,
based upon the materials and purposes,
which are other than 'the payment of salary
to the teachers and the other employees'. I
am constrained to observe that the
Inspector has clearly erred in making the
recommendation de hors the provisions of
the 1971 Act and for the reasons, which are
not prescribed under Section 4(1). As the
very foundation is found to be arbitrary, the
orders passed on the said foundation also
do not have any legs to stand, as such, the
impugned order dated 13.02.2023 as well
as the subsequent appellate order dated
24.07.2023 are wholly arbitrary and illegal
and are quashed merely on the ground of
lack of jurisdiction and arbitrary exercise of
power. The consequential order dated
09.08.2023 is also quashed.

15. The writ petition stands allowed
on the aforesaid observations.
----------
(2023) 9 ILRA 492
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 07.08.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SIDDHARTHA VARMA, J.
THE HON'BLE SYED QAMAR HASAN RIZVI, J.

Writ-C No. 10049 of 2014

Gauri Garg ...Petitioner
Versus
I.O.C. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Rakesh Kumar, Sri Tarun Agrawal

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Prakash Padia, Sri Anand Tiwari, Sri Rajiv
Gupta, S.C.

Held:
As per the brochure issued by Indian Oil
Corporation,
the
evaluation
of
financial
soundness - particularly under the head of fixed
and movable assets - must be based on a
valuation report duly certified by a Government
Approved Valuer. In the absence of such a
report from either party, awarding marks under
that
head
was
impermissible.
The
word
"necessary" used in the brochure is to be
construed as "mandatory", and any deviation
renders the evaluation flawed. Hence, the
selection process undertaken without adhering
to this requirement was vitiated.

Case Law Discussed:

None cited directly in the judgment.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Syed Qamar Hasan
Rizvi, J.)

Order of Chief Manager (Retail Sales) dated
31.01.2014 quashed - Matter remanded for
fresh evaluation strictly in accordance with the
brochure guidelines after obtaining valuation
reports from Government Approved Valuers.

Petition partly allowed.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Syed Qamar Hasan
Rizvi, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the
petitioner, the learned Standing Counsel for
the State respondents and the counsel for
the Indian Oil Corporation.

2. Indian Oil Corporation issued an
advertisement in the daily newspaper,
namely Amar Ujala on 17.12.2010 and
invited applications for the dealership of
retail outlets in various places in Eastern
U.P. The location in question was on the
State Highway No. 51 between Kilometers
stone 119 and 124. The category was an
"open women" category. The petitioner and
the respondent no. 4 submitted the duly
completed application forms on 31.1.2011
at the relevant office of the IOC. The
9 All. Gauri Garg Vs. I.O.C. & Ors.
493
petitioner and the respondent no. 4 both
expected that their applications would be
evaluated as per the standards given in the
brochure. The brochure envisage evaluation
on two grounds, one was with regard to the
suitability of the land for the retail outlet
and the other was with regard to financial
soundness.
The
controversy
revolves
around the financial soundness. In the
financial soundness column twenty marks
were to be awarded. Out of these twenty
marks liquid cash was to be assessed on the
scale of twelve; fixed and movable assets
were to be assessed at the scale of four and
income from business, interest, rent,
royalty etc, to be assessed on the scale of
four.

3. Initially the petitioner and the
respondent no. 4 out of all the applicants
were considered to be the best candidates
and were given 90.90 marks and 91.53
marks
respectively
on
an
overall
assessment. Under the financial soundness
category the petitioner was given four
marks for fixed and movable assets and the
respondent no. 4 was given 2.95 marks. So
far as the income column was concerned,
the petitioner was given 1.08 marks
whereas the respondent no. 4 was given full
marks i.e. 4 marks.

4. The petitioner, aggrieved by the
fact that she was given lesser marks than
she deserved under the column of income
i.e. income from business, interest, rent,
royalty etc, filed a grievance petition before
the respondent no. 2 ? Chief Manager
(Retail Sales). Upon evaluating the case of
the petitioner and the respondent no. 4, the
Chief Manager (Retail Sales) who was
looking into the grievance of the petitioner
found that the petitioner was wrongly
awarded only 1.08 marks and infact she
ought to have been awarded four marks
under that head. In the result, the evaluation
as was done on 30.11.2012 was set aside
and the matter was remanded to be
reconsidered afresh.

5. We find that the matter was again
considered afresh on 18.11.2013 and on
that day both the petitioner and the
respondent no. 4 were given full marks i.e.
four marks under the income clause.
However, the petitioner was given only
1.25 marks for fixed and movable assets
whereas the respondent no. 4 was given full
four marks for the fixed and movable
assets. In this manner, the petitioner again
came second with 91.07 marks and the
respondent no. 4 came first with 92.58
marks. The petitioner again challenged the
markings by filing a grievance petition
before the Chief Manager (Retail Sales)
and the Chief Manager on 31.1.2014 after
finding that both the petitioner and the
respondent no. 4 had not given any report
of any Government Approved Valuer with
regard to their fixed and movable assets
evaluated
their
assets
himself
and
concluded that the respondent no. 4 was
rightly given 4 marks on the basis of a sale
deed submitted by her and the petitioner
was correctly given 1.25 marks on the basis
of sale deed submitted by the petitioner.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner
has assailed the order of Chief Manager
(Retails Sales) dated 31.1.2014 on the
ground that the provision with regard to the
assessment of marks vis-a-vis the fixed and
movable assets provided in the brochure
had not been considered in its rights
perspective. He has submitted that if one
went by the provisions of the brochure, the
Chief Manager (Retail Sales) ought to have
strictly adhered to the directions given in
the brochure, which provided that the fixed
and movable assets would be marked only
494 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
on the basis of an approved valuer's
valuation report and the valuer had to be a
Government Approved Valuer. He further
submits that the sale deed submitted
independently by candidates ought not to
have
been
considered
without
the
government valuers report.

7. In the alternative, learned counsel
for the petitioner has also submitted that a
particular sale deed dated 26.10.1998
which had been placed by the petitioner
had also not been considered. He further
submits that either both the applicants be
given 'zero' for not having provided the
Government Approved Valuers report or
the correct marks be given on the basis of
sale deed submitted. Further, grievance of
the petitioner is that the commercial vehicle
of the petitioner was also not considered for
evaluating her movable assets.

8. Learned counsel for the Indian Oil
Corporation has however opposed the
contentions of the learned counsel for the
petitioner and has submitted that when
there was no Government Approved
Valuer's report then definitely the Chief
Manager (Retail Sales) who was looking
into the grievance petition could have
looked into the movable and immovable
assets of the parties and he further submits
that valuation had to be taken for the fixed
and movable assets to know as to whether a
particular applicant was financially sound.

9. Having heard the learned counsel for
the petitioner and the learned counsel for the
Indian Oil Corporation, this Court is of the
view that a bare perusal of the brochure
shows that the fixed and movable assets had
to be looked into only as per the valuation
report which had to be duly certified by a
Government Approved Valuer and we find
that the brochure says that the Government
Approved Valuers Report was a necessary
input. We do find that financial soundness
had to be assessed as per the method given in
the brochure. The brochure has specifically
stated that financial soundness had to be
based on "valuation report duly certified by
Government Approved Valuers in support of
assets". It further goes to say that the report
was "necessary".

10. We are thus of the view that the
word 'necessary' ought to be interpreted as
mandatory. In the instant case when there was
no Government Approved Valuer's report for
the petitioner and also for the respondent no.
4, then the only inevitable conclusion would
be that neither the petitioner nor the
respondent no. 4 ought to have been given
any marks under the fixed and movable
assets category and infact the IOC should
have insisted on the parties to have got a
Government Approved Valuer's Reports. This
having not been done, we are of the
considered view that the whole exercise
undergone by the Chief Manager, Retails
Sales was an exercise in futility. He should
have
insisted
upon
the
report
from
Government Approved Valuers and thereafter
should have allotted the marks under the
heading "fixed and movable assets".

11. Having regard to the facts and
circumstances as mentioned above, the
order dated 31.1.2014 passed by the
respondent no. 2 is quashed and is hereby
set aside. The matter is remitted back to the
respondent no. 2, who would now get
reports from the Government Approved
Valuers and thereafter proceed to allot
marks to the petitioners and the respondent
no. 4.

12. For the reasons stated above, the
writ petition stands partly allowed.
----------
9 All. Paltoo Ram Yadav Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
495
(2023) 9 ILRA 495
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 18.08.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE DR. YOGENDRA KUMAR
SRIVASTAVA, J.

Writ-C No. 10192 of 2023

Paltoo Ram Yadav ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Hemant Kumar Rai, Sri Arvind Kumar Rai, Sri
S.B. Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Mayank Krishna S Chandel, Sri Ram
Niwas Singh, Sri Rameshwar Prasad Shukla, Sri
Vinod Kumar Chandel

Civil Law - U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 -
Sections 207, 209 & 210 - Suit for division
of holding - Appeal against final decree
allowed
- Case remanded for fresh
decision - Whether remedy of revision lies
under Section 210 - Scope and meaning of
"proceeding decided" -
Held:
Order of remand passed by appellate authority
containing observations on merits and findings
regarding rights of parties cannot be treated as
'remand simpliciter' or an interlocutory order -
Such order held to be a "proceeding decided"
under Section 210 - Revision maintainable -
Writ petition not maintainable in view of
alternative efficacious statutory remedy.

Held: The remand order passed by the
Commissioner
while
deciding
three
appeals under Section 207 of the U.P.
Revenue Code, 2006, contained a detailed
consideration on merits, including findings
on the nature of property and possession
based on registered sale deeds, and
directions for fresh adjudication after
affording opportunity to the parties -
Such an order cannot be treated as a
'remand simpliciter' - The expression
'proceeding decided' under Section 210
includes
such
appellate
orders
-
Therefore,
remedy
of
revision
under
Section
210
is
available
-
Petition
dismissed on ground of availability of
alternative remedy.

Petition Dismissed.

Case Law Discussed:

1. Ram Bhajan & ors. Vs Deputy Director of
Consolidation, Allahabad & anr.

2. Mahendra Singh & ors. Vs Board of Revenue,
U.P. & ors.

3. Jhinka Devi Vs St. of U.P. & ors.

4. Deena Nath & ors. Vs Deputy Director of
Consolidation

(Delivered by Hon'ble Dr. Yogendra
Kumar Srivastava, J.)

1. Heard Sri S.B. Singh, along with
Sri Hemant Kumar Rai, learned counsel for
the petitioner, Sri Kunal Ravi Singh,
learned Chief Standing Counsel along with
Sri Abhishek Shukla, learned Additional
Chief Standing Counsel appearing for the
State-respondents and also Sri Vinod
Kumar Chandel, learned counsel appearing
for the respondent Nos. 4 and 5.

2. The present petition seeks to raise
an issue with regard to availability of the
statutory remedy of a revision under
Section 210 of the U.P. Revenue Code,
2006 against an order of remand passed in
an appeal.

3. The admitted facts between the
parties are that land bearing plot no. 89
measuring an area of 0.150 hectares situate
at Village Harakhpur, Pargana and Tehsil
Sagri, District Azamgarh was jointly held