# Smt. Saroj Gautam v. Union of India & Ors

- **Citation:** (2020) 9 ILRA 698
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2019-09-16
- **Case number:** WRIT - C No. 37710 of 2016
- **Bench:** Bala Krishna Narayana, Prakash Padia
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/smt-saroj-gautam-v-union-of-india-ors-45110
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

brochure - Relaxation - Constitution of India
- Article 226 - High Court in exercise of
power under Art. 226 cannot relax terms
and conditions of brochure on guidelines for
selection of regular LPG Distributors -
petitioner not having clear title of land for
construction of godown as per the Clause
6.1 of the Guidelines - Rejection of
candidature, proper (Para 17, 18)

Dismissed (E-5)

List of Cases cited: -

Durgawati Devi Vs. Union of India & ors. 2019
(6) AWC 6252

## Text

698 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
employers
dated
15th
January,
2017,
acknowledges in paragraph 3 that the then
prevalent
salary
of
the
workman
(contemporaneous with the affidavit) would be
Rs.16,856/-. It is presumably the then current
monthly salary, though in the affidavit, the
stipulation of the acknowledged remuneration
as a monthly entitlement, is conspicuous by its
absence. There is a detailed calculation
furnished by the workman in paragraph 11 of
his affidavit dated 17th January, 2017, showing
his entitlement to arrears, worked at 50% of his
wages in terms of the award at a figure of
Rs.14,70,137/-. The calculation takes into
account periodic revision of salary and the
varying entitlement during different periods of
time as per prevalent wages/ salary.

56. This Court is of opinion that in the
totality of circumstances, particularly, the fact
that the workman has not after all rendered
service during the entire period of time until his
superannuation, though not on account of his
fault, ends of justice would be met by
modifying the award impugned to provide that
the workman shall be entitled to receive in full
satisfaction of all his claims, a lump sum of
Rs.6 lakhs from the employers within two
months of date. In the event, the sum of money
directed to be paid in lump sum by the
employers is not paid to the workman within
the stipulated period of time, the workman
would be entitled to simple interest @ 6% per
annum till realization. The workman shall be
entitled to receive in costs from the employers a
sum of Rs.20,000/-.

57. The writ petition is partly
allowed. Costs shall be payable as directed.
----------
(2020)09ILR A698
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 16.09.2019

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE BALA KRISHNA NARAYANA, J.
THE HON'BLE PRAKASH PADIA, J.

WRIT - C No. 37710 of 2016

Smt. Saroj Gautam ...Petitioner
Versus
Union of India & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Satyhaveer Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
A.S.G.I., Sri Rajesh Kumar Jaiswal, Sri
Vikas Bushwar

LPG Distributor - Selection - Guidelines in
brochure - Relaxation - Constitution of India
- Article 226 - High Court in exercise of
power under Art. 226 cannot relax terms
and conditions of brochure on guidelines for
selection of regular LPG Distributors -
petitioner not having clear title of land for
construction of godown as per the Clause
6.1 of the Guidelines - Rejection of
candidature, proper (Para 17, 18)

Dismissed (E-5)

List of Cases cited: -

Durgawati Devi Vs. Union of India & ors. 2019
(6) AWC 6252

(Delivered by Hon'ble Prakash Padia, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the
petitioner, Sri R.K. Jaiswal, learned counsel
respondent No.1 and Sri Vikas Budhwar,
learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 4.

2. The petitioner has preferred the
present writ petition with the following
prayers:-

"I Issue a writ, order or direction
in thenature of certiorari by quashing the
impugned order dated 01.08.2016 passed
by respondent No.4 (Annexure No.11).
9 All. Smt. Saroj Gautam Vs. Union of India & Ors.
699

II. Issue a writ order or direction
in the nature of mandamus by directing the
respondents to grant the distributorship of
L.P.G. Place - Naini, District Allahabad
under Schedule Caste Category in the
favour of petitioner.

III. Issue such other and further
order which this Hon'ble court may deem
fit and proper under the facts and
circumstances of the case;

IV. Award cost of this petition to
the petitioners."

3. Facts in brief as contained in the
writ petition are that the Hindustan
Petroleum Corporation Limited (hereinafter
referred to as "the corporation") has
published an advertisement on 29.9.2013
for appointment of L.P.G. distributors for
various locations. Pursuant to the aforesaid
advertisement, the petitioner applied for
allotment of L.P.G. distributorship in
respect of location No.131 namely H.P.C.
Naini Allahabad under Scheduled Caste
Category Candidate for Urban Area Vipran
Yojna 2013-2014. A letter dated 14.6.2014
was written by the respondent No.4 namely
Senior Regional Manager of respondent
Corporation to the petitioner by which she
was informed that draw for the location in
question was held on 05.07.2014. In the
draw the petitioner was found selected and
thereafter a letter dated 5.7.2014 was
written by the respondent No.4 to the
petitioner directing her to deposit a demand
draft of Rs.25,000/- for field verification.
By the aforesaid letter, the petitioner was
further directed to place certain papers and
documents before the respondent No.4.

4. It is contended that the petitioner
had duly completed all the formalities well
within
time.
During
the
course
of
verification, the land offered by the
petitioner for construction of godown was
not found suitable as such a letter dated
10.10.2014 was written by the respondentcorporation to the petitioner to offer an
alternative land either in the name of the
petitioner or any other family unit available
on or before the date of application.

5. In the reply, it is stated by the
petitioner that objection raised by the
respondent-corporation dated 10.10.2014 is
not sustainable, since the petitioner has
annexed rent agreement in respect of
aforesaid Gata No.844/1 area 1260 sq.
meter along with No Objection Certificate
of other co-owners in the prescribed
format. It is further stated that the petitioner
has also annexed registered supplementary
deed
dated
18.10.2014
to
the
rent
agreement dated 26.10.2013. After the
aforesaid letter was received in the Office
of respondent-corporation, another letter
dated 15.11.2014 was written by the
respondent-corporation stating therein that
the land provided by the petitioner was coowned by five brothers and share of the
lease holder is only 1/5th of 1260 sq.
meters, i.e., 252 sq. meters which is less
than the required land, i.e., 25 meters x 30
meters, i.e., 750 sq. meters.

6. In response to the same, a letter
was written by the petitioner on 4.12.2014
stating therein that the petitioner has
another land for godown at Gata No.903
area 756 sq. meter situated at Mouja
Karehada Uparhar Pargana Teshil Sadar
District Allahabad for which there is a
registered rent agreement for the period
23.11.2011 to 21.11.2027.In this regard,
counsel for the petitioner also relied upon a
letter dated 26.3.2015 written by the
respondent Corporation to the petitioner
asking for land suitable for construction of
godown. In the said letter, it is further
stated by the respondent corporation to
700 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
provide an alternate land within a period of
seven days as per the terms and conditions
otherwise the corporation authorities will
take action as per the procedure. In
response to the same, again a reply was
given by the petitioner on 13.4.2015. Being
not satisfied with the petitioner's, reply,
another
letter
was
written
by
the
respondent-corporation to the petitioner on
27.5.2015 again asking for providing
suitable land for construction of godown.
Since no reply was given by the petitioner
in response to the aforesaid letter, a letter
dated
1.8.2016
was
written
by
the
respondent No.4 to the petitioner informing
him that appointment of the petitioner was
cancelled
and
the
security
amount
deposited by the petitioner towards field
verification i.e. Rs.25,000/- was forfeited.

7.

Challenging
the
aforesaid
order/letter dated 1.8.2016, the petitioner
has preferred the present writ petition on
the ground that the order impugned is
absolutely arbitrary and illegal and liable to
be set aside. It is stated that all the
objections raised in the impugned order are
unwarranted and not sustainable in the eyes
of law. It is contended that the power of
attorney is not mandatory to be registered
as per the provisions of Registration Act,
1908. It is stated that since No objection
certificate has already been given by the
co-owners of the land, the demand of
registered power of attorney is illegal.

8. A detailed counter affidavit has
been filed on behalf of the respondentcorporation/respondent Nos.2, 3 and 4. It is
stated in the counter affidavit that the
procedure and manner according to which
selections are made for the award of regular
LPG distributorship are set out in the
Brochure on Guidelines for Selection of
Regular LPG Distributors, August, 2013.
Copy of the aforesaid Guidelines is
annexed as Annexure -1 to the counter
affidavit.
The
eligibility
criteria
for
individual applicants is contained in clause
6 of the aforesaid guidelines which is
reproduced below:-

6.
ELIGIBILITY
CRITERIA
FOR INDIVIDUAL APPLICANTS

All
applicants
fulfilling
the
eligibility criteria will become eligible for
the draw for selection of the LPG
distributorship. The eligibility Criteria is as
under: -

6.1. Common Eligibility Criteria
for all Categories applying as Individual

The applicant should

''Family Unit' in case of married
person/
applicant,
shall
consist
of
individual

concerned, his/her Spouse and
their unmarried son(s)/daughter(s). In case
of unmarried person/ applicant, ''Family
Unit' shall consist of individual concerned,
his/her parents and his/her unmarried
brother(s) and unmarried sister(s). In case
of divorcee, ''Family Unit' shall consist of
individual
concerned,
unmarried
son(s)/unmarried
daughter(s)
whose
custody is given to him/her. In case of
widow/widower, ''Family Unit' shall consist
of
individual
concerned,
unmarried
son(s)/unmarried daughter(s).

vii Should own as on the last date
for submission of application as specified in
the advertisement or corrigendum (if any)

A plot of land of minimum
dimensions 25 Metre x 30 Metre (within 15
km from municipal/town/village limits of
the location offered in the same State) for
construction of LPG Godown for storage of
8000 Kg of LPG in cylinders. The plot of
land for construction of godown not
meeting the minimum dimensions of 25
Metre x 30 Metre will not be considered.
9 All. Smt. Saroj Gautam Vs. Union of India & Ors.
701

Or

a ready LPG cylinder storage
godown
(within
15
km
from
municipal/town/village
limits
of
the
location offered in the same State) of 8000
Kg capacity.

In case there are any state
specific requirements/norms applicable for
construction of the LPG Godown, then the
same will be applicable for the respective
Regular Distributorship locations including
revised minimum dimensions of plot of land
will be required as specified in the
Advertisement of that respective State.

The plot of land or ready LPG
cylinder storage godown should be freely
accessible through all weather motorable
approach road (public road or private road
connecting to the public road). In case of
private road connecting to the public road,
the
same
should
belong
to
the
applicant/member of Family Unit (as per
the
multiple
dealership/distributorship
norm of eligibility criteria) as per the
ownership criteria defined below. In case
of
ownership/co-ownership
by
family
member(s) in respect of such private road,
consent letter from respective family
member(s) will be required.

The land should also be plain, in
one contiguous plot, free from live
overhead power transmission or telephone
lines. Canals/Drainage.Nallahs should not
be passing through the plot. The land for
construction of LPG godown should also
meet the norms of various statutory bodies
such as PWD/Highway authorities/ Town
and Country Planning Department etc.

In case an applicant has more
than one suitable plot for construction of
godown for storage of minimum 8000 Kg of
LPG in cylinders or ready LPG cylinder
storage godown as on the last date for
submission of application as specified in
the advertisement or corrigendum (if any),
the details of the same can also be provided
in the application.

(viii) Own a suitable shop of
minimum size 3 metre by 4.5 metre in
dimension or a plot of land for construction
of showroom of minimum size 3 metre by
4.5 metre as on the last date for submission
of
application
as
specified
in
the
advertisement or corrigendum (if any) at
the advertised location i.e. within the
municipal/town/village limits of the place
which is mentioned under the column of
''location' in the advertisement. In case
locality is also specified under the column
of ''location' in the advertisement, the
candidate should own a suitable shop of
minimum size 3 metre by 4.5 metre in
dimension or a plot of land for construction
of showroom of minimum size 3 metre by
4.5 metre as on the last date for submission
of
application
as
specified
in
the
advertisement or corrigendum (if any) as
per the standard layout in the said
''locality'. It should be easily accessible to
general public through a suitable approach
road.

In case an applicant has more
than one shop of minimum size 3 metre by
4.5 metre in dimension or a plot of land for
construction of showroom of minimum size
3 metre by 4.5 metre as on the last date for
submission of application as specified in
the advertisement or corrigendum (if any)
at the advertised location or locality as
specified under the column of ''location' in
the advertisement, the details of the same
can also be provided in the application.

''Own' means having ownership
title of the property or registered lease
deed having minimum 15 yrs of valid lease
period from the date of advertisement in the
name of applicant / member of "Family
Unit"
(as
defined
in
multiple
dealership/distributorship
norm
of
eligibility criteria). The applicant should
702 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
have clear ownership as defined under the
term ''Own' above as on last date for
submission of application as specified in
the advertisement or corrigendum (if any).
In case of ownership/co-ownership by
family member(s) as given above, consent
in the form of a Notarized Affidavit from
the family member(s) will be required.

In case the land is jointly owned
by the applicant / member of ''Family Unit'
(as defined in multiple dealership /
distributorship norm) with any other
person(s) and the share of the land in the
name of applicant / member of the ''Family
Unit' meets the requirement of land
including the dimensions required, then
that land for godown/showroom will also
qualify for eligibility as own land subject to
submission of ''No Objection Certificate' in
the form of an Notarized Affidavit from
other owner(s)."

9. It is stated in the counter affidavit
that pursuant to the advertisement dated
29.09.2013, an application form was
submitted by the petitioner on 27.10.2013.
The last date for submission of application
form was 28.10.2013. Column nine of the
application form is pertaining to the land
offered by the petitioner for LPG godown.
The petitioner offered Khasra no.844/1
showing herself to be owner of the land by
virtue of registered lease deed dated
26.10.2013. From perusal of the aforesaid
lease deed, it appears that same was in
respect of Gata No.844/1 and the same was
executed by one Vijay Kumar in favour of
the petitioner. The total area mentioned in
the application form was 1260 square
meters. On the basis of the aforesaid
disclosure made by the petitioner in her
application form, a call letter was issued to
the petitioner on 14.6.2014. The draw of lot
was conducted on 5.7.2014. In the
aforesaid draw, the petitioner was declared
successful. As per the procedure prescribed
in the brochure, the field verification was
conducted
by
the
officials
of
the
Corporation on 10.10.2014 in which it was
found that in Gata No.844/1 share of Vijay
Kumar was 1/5th, i.e., total area 252 square
meters whereas the requirement as per
Clause 6(iii) is 25 meters x 30 meters, i.e.,
750 square meters. In view of the same, a
letter dated 10.10.2014 was issued by the
respondent Corporation to the petitioner to
provide any other alternative piece of land
in her name or in the name a member of of
her "family unit" available on or before the
date of submission of application form.
Pursuant to the same, a letter dated
22.10.2014 was written by the petitioner to
the respondent corporation stating therein
that Gata No.844/1 area 1260 square meters
is in the joint ownership of five persons and
along with the said letter, the petitioner
appended No Objection Certificate of four
other owners and also an unregistered
power of attorney dated 27.4.2013. Apart
from the same, the petitioner has also
appended a copy of the correction lease
deed dated 18.10.2014.

10. It is argued that Sri Vikas
Budhwar, learned counsel appearing on
behalf of respondent corporation that as per
clause 6 (vii), the applicant should have a
plot of land having minimum dimension of
25 meters x 30 meters on the last date of
submission of application form. The
petitioner
has
neither
submitted
No
Objection Certificate on or before the said
date nor any correction deed was executed
by her before the last date of submission of
her application form, i.e., 28.10.2013. In
view of the same, the aforesaid papers
submitted by the petitioner were not taken
into consideration by the respondentcorporation. It is further argued that alleged
no objection certificate dated 26.10.2013
9 All. Smt. Saroj Gautam Vs. Union of India & Ors.
703
which is on record cannot be taken into
consideration, since it does not contain any
recital to the effect that other co-owners are
ready and they have no objection about the
lease of land to the petitioner.

11. Pursuant to the same, the
petitioner offered another registered lease
agreement so executed by one Sheshdhar in
favour of the petitioner showing lease of
land for 16 years from execution from the
date of lease deed, i.e., 23.11.2011. The
registered lease deed was executed on
23.11.2011by Sheshdhar for Arazi No.903
area 756 square meters does not confer the
requirement
mentioned
under
clause
6.1(vii) since the lease was not of minimum
15 year on the last date of submission of
the application form, i.e., 28.10.2013.

12. In the circumstances, another
letter dated 15.11.2014 was written by the
respondent corporation to the petitioner
permitting the petitioner to offer another
alternative piece of land having registration
on or before the last date of submission of
application form, i.e., 28.10.2013 within
seven days of receipt of the letter either in
the name of the petitioner or a member of
her family unit as prescribed in the
brochure.

13. Apart from the same, a rent
agreement dated 02.12.2014 was also
provided by the petitioner, copy of which is
appended as Annexure 8 to the writ
petition. Although the same was executed
in favour of the petitioner but the same was
not taken into consideration on the ground
that the aforesaid agreement was executed
after the last date of submission of
application
form
i.e.,
28.10.2013.
Subsequently, taking a lenient view,
another letter dated 26.3.2015 was written
by the respondent corporation to the
petitioner by which again a request was
made by the corporation to the petitioner to
submit alternative piece of land registered
on or before the last date of submission of
application form, i.e. 28.10.2013.

14. The reply submitted by the
petitioner was not found satisfactory, since
no alternative land was provided by the
petitioner as per requirement of the
Brochure, the order dated 1.8.2016 was
passed by the respondent corporation
rejecting the candidature of the petitioner
and forfeiting a sum of Rs.25,000/-. It is
further argued by Sri Vikas Budhwar,
learned counsel that the petitioner is not an
illiterate person and knew the terms and
conditions
applicable
for
LPG
distributorship. The application form was
filled up by the petitioner with her open
eyes. The petitioner was fully aware that
she should own the land for a period of 15
years on the last date of submission of
application form, i.e, 28.1.2013.

15. Heard learned counsel for the
parties and perused the record.

16. From perusal of record, it
transpires
that
pursuant
to
the
advertisement
dated
29.9.2013,
an
application form was submitted by the
petitioner on 27.10.2013. Along with
application form, the petitioner offered a
land for LPG godown situated at Gata
No.844/1. In the application form, she
showed herself to be owner of th land by
virtue of registered lease deed dated
26.10.2013. During field verification, it
was found that Sri Vijay Kumar who
executed lease deed in favour of the
petitioner having only 1/5th share of the
total area of land, i.e., 252 square meters. In
view of the same, the petitioner does not
have a minimum land for the construction
704 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
of godown as per requirement of the
advertisement. A letter was written by the
Corporation to the petitioner with a request
to offer alternative piece of land in her
name, though no objection certificate was
submitted by the petitioner but the same
was not found suitable by the respondent
corporation. Subsequently, the petitioner
submitted registered lease agreement so
executed by one Sheshdhar in favour of the
petitioner. The aforesaid lease deed was
executed on 23.11.2011. The same was also
not found suitable since the same did not
confirm with the requirement contained
under Clause 6.1 (vii) of the brochure as
the lease was not for minimum 15 years on
the last date of submission of application
form. Insofar as the correction lease deed
dated 18.10.2014 is concerned, the same
was also not taken into consideration by the
Corporation since as per the terms and
conditions of the brochure a document
cannot taken into consideration which was
submitted after the last date of the
application form.

17. It is settled law that the terms and
conditions contained in the brochure cannot
be relaxed by the court of law. In the case
of Durgawati Devi Vs. Union of India and
others 2019 (6) AWC 6252 , the Supreme
Court was pleased to hold that High Court
should not exercise power under Article
226 of the Constitution of India to relax the
terms and conditions of the tender notice.
Relevant
paragraps
of
the
aforesaid
judgment is quoted below:-

"4. Clause 6H (iii) explains ''own'
to mean having clear ownership title of the
property in the name of the applicant, or in
the name of family members of the ''Family
Unit' of the applicant as defined in multiple
dealership/distributorship norms, or land
belonging to parents and grandparents
(both maternal and paternal) of the
applicant, as on the last date for
submission of applications as specified in
the advertisement or corrigendum (if any)
in case of ownership/co-ownership) by
family members.

5. Admittedly, as on the last date
for submission of applications in terms of
the advertisement referred to above, the
petitioner did not own land as required.
The petitioner only had an agreement for
sale in her favour. It is well-settled that
execution of a sale agreement does not
transfer ownership/title. Ownership can
only be acquired by a registered deed of
conveyance. The petitioner was not eligible
as on the last date for submission of
applications.

6. Counsel appearing on behalf of
the petitioner strenuously contended that a
deed of conveyance has since been
executed and the petitioner is now the
owner of the land. However, it is not
disputed that as on the relevant date, that is
the last date for submission of applications,
the petitioner was not the owner of the
land.

7. The High Court cannot, and
rightly did not, in exercise of power under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
relax the terms and conditions of a tender
notice.

8. Such relaxation would be
patently discriminatory, for it would then
be open for other applicants ineligible on
the last date for submission of applications
to contend that, they could have acquired
eligibility subsequently.

9. In our view, the High Court
rightly
dismissed
the
Writ
Petition,
challenging the rejection of the candidature
of the petitioner as devoid of merit. The
impugned judgment and order does not call
for interference. Accordingly, the special
leave
petition
is
dismissed."
9 All. Smt. Kaushalya Chauabey Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
705

18. In view of the facts as stated above,
it is clear that the petitioner does not have a
clear title of land for construction of godown
as per the Clause 6.1 of the Guidelines issued
by the respondent-corporation for selection of
regular LPG distributors.

19. In view of the aforesaid facts as
stated above, in our view the respondent
corporation rightly rejected the candidature
of the petitioner. The order passed by the
respondent corporation dated 1.8.2016 is a
perfect and valid order and does not call for
any interference by this Court especially
under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India.

20. The writ petition being devoid of
merits is liable to be dismissed.

21. The writ petition is dismissed. No
order as to costs.
----------
(2020)09ILR A705
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 22.01.2020

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE BALA KRISHNA NARAYANA, J.
THE HON'BLE RAVI NATH TILHARI, J.

WRIT - C No. 38586 of 2018

Smt. Kaushalya Chaubey ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Nand Kishore Mishra

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

(A) Civil Law - principles of natural justice
-audi alteram partem - procedural fairness
which ensures taking of correct decision -
any order or any action having civil
consequences has to be passed/taken
after affording opportunity of hearing to
the person concerned, in consonance with
the principles of natural justice - If this
requirement not fulfilled - order or the
action cannot be sustained - person has a
right to show cause against the proposed
action which, if taken, would adversely
affect his rights or impose some liability
on him/her - revisional order & demand
notice quashed .(Para-15)

District
Magistrate
By
order/notice
dated
13.7.2018 - cancelled the petitioner's mining
permit - after determining the petitioner's
liability for payment - directed for recovery of
the
said
amount
from
the
petitioner
-
petitioner's revision dismissed - petitioner was
directed to make the payment failing which, it
was provided that the same shall be recovered
as arrears of land revenue - order/notice -
composite one - passed in violation of the
principles
of
natural
justice
of
providing
opportunity of hearing to the petitioner . (Para2,20)

HELD:- The order/notice dated 13.7.2018 shall
be treated only as a show cause notice to the
petitioner for (i) cancellation of petitioner's
mining
permit,
(ii)
for
determination
of
petitioner's liability for payment of amount
under different heads as mentioned therein and
(iii) black listing on the grounds mentioned
therein. The cancellation of mining permit and
direction to deposit the amount determined in
the order dated 13.7.2018 shall be treated only
as
the
proposed
actions
against
the
petitioner.(Para-21)

Petition allowed partly. (E-7)

List of Cases cited: -

1. Nisha Devi Vs St. of H.P. & ors., (2014) 16
SCC 392

2. Dharampal Satyapal Vs Deputy Commissioner
of Central Excise & ors., (2015) 8 SCC 519

UOI Vs Hanil Era Textiles Ltd, (2018) 13 SCC
219