# Smt. Sudha Devi v. Union of India & Ors

- **Citation:** (2023) 6 ILRA 461
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2023-04-20
- **Case number:** Writ-C No. 23238 of 2011
- **Bench:** Salil Kumar Rai, Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/smt-sudha-devi-v-union-of-india-ors-50309
- **Pages:** 6

## Headnote

Civil Law - Selection of Kisan Sewa Kendra
Dealer (Retail Outlet) - Guidelines of the
Indian Oil Corporation Ltd regarding the
allotment of retail outlets - Petitioner
filed consent affidavits of co-sharers in
Plot No. 370/1 after the submission of the
application form. Indian Oil Corporation
awarded zero marks to the petitioner for
the potentiality of land. Held: As per the
guidelines of the Indian Oil Corporation
regarding the allotment of retail outlets, if
the land is owned by the petitioner along
with other persons and the share of the
petitioner exceeds the requirement set by
Indian Oil Corporation, then the petitioner
was required to submit a registered
agreement with the other co-sharers,
showing their consent along with the
demarcated part of his share. In instant
case, the petitioner did not comply with
the above requirements by failing to file
the consent of the other co-sharers
through a registered agreement at the
time of submitting the application form,
nor at the time of the interview held on
12.11.2010. Required documents should
have been filed by the last date of
submitting the application form. Any
documents
filed
later
cannot
be
considered. Therefore, the affidavit of the
co-owners regarding consent, filed after
the submission of the application, cannot
be taken into consideration. Failure to
award marks for the potentiality of land
(capacity to provide infrastructure and
facilities) to the petitioner cannot be
considered erroneous. (Para 14, 16)
Dismissed. (E-5)
List of Cases cited:

## Text

6 All. Smt. Sudha Devi Vs. Union of India & Ors.
461

37. The respondents are directed to
restore the retail outlet dealership of the
petitioner forthwith.

38. The writ petition stands allowed.
----------
(2023) 6 ILRA 461
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 20.04.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SALIL KUMAR RAI, J.
THE HON'BLE ARUN KUMAR SINGH
DESHWAL, J.

Writ-C No. 23238 of 2011

Smt. Sudha Devi ...Petitioner
Versus
Union of India & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Arvind Srivastava, Sri Abhay Raj Yadav

Counsel for the Respondents:
A.S.G.I., Sri Devi Shanker Shukla, S.C., Sri
Tarun Verma, Sri Yogendra Kumar Yadav

Civil Law - Selection of Kisan Sewa Kendra
Dealer (Retail Outlet) - Guidelines of the
Indian Oil Corporation Ltd regarding the
allotment of retail outlets - Petitioner
filed consent affidavits of co-sharers in
Plot No. 370/1 after the submission of the
application form. Indian Oil Corporation
awarded zero marks to the petitioner for
the potentiality of land. Held: As per the
guidelines of the Indian Oil Corporation
regarding the allotment of retail outlets, if
the land is owned by the petitioner along
with other persons and the share of the
petitioner exceeds the requirement set by
Indian Oil Corporation, then the petitioner
was required to submit a registered
agreement with the other co-sharers,
showing their consent along with the
demarcated part of his share. In instant
case, the petitioner did not comply with
the above requirements by failing to file
the consent of the other co-sharers
through a registered agreement at the
time of submitting the application form,
nor at the time of the interview held on
12.11.2010. Required documents should
have been filed by the last date of
submitting the application form. Any
documents
filed
later
cannot
be
considered. Therefore, the affidavit of the
co-owners regarding consent, filed after
the submission of the application, cannot
be taken into consideration. Failure to
award marks for the potentiality of land
(capacity to provide infrastructure and
facilities) to the petitioner cannot be
considered erroneous. (Para 14, 16)
Dismissed. (E-5)
List of Cases cited:
1. Saurav Mittal Vs Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. &
ors. - Writ C No. 54357 of 2013
2. Smt. Sangeeta Gupta Vs U.,O.I. & ors. - 2009
(7) ADJ 534 (DB)
3. Madhu Singh Vs U.O.I. & ors. - 2013 ADJ
Online 0398
(Delivered by Hon'ble Arun Kumar Singh
Deshwal, J.)

1. Heard Sri Arvind Srivastava,
learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Anant
Kumar
Tiwari,
learned
counsel
for
respondent no.1-Union of India and Sri
Devi Shanker Shukla, learned counsel for
respondent nos.2, 3 and 4.

2. Present petition has been filed by
the petitioner initially challenging the result
dated 12.11.2010 regarding selection of
Kisan Sewa Kendra Dealer (retail outlet) at
Rampuriya Awwal in District-Chitrakoot.
Subsequently, petition was amended and
order dated 11.04.2011 passed by General
462 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Manager, Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.,
Lucknow, was also challenged, by which,
representation of the petitioner was rejected
regarding non-awarding of any marks for
capability to provide infrastructure (land)
as well as issuance of resident certificate to
respondent no.5.

3. Factual matrix of the present case is
that Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. (respondent
no.2)
has
issued
advertisement
dated
18.08.2010, inviting application form for the
selection of Kisan Sewa Kendra Dealer at
Rampuriya Awwal in District-Chitrakoot. In
pursuance of the above advertisement, the
petitioner has also submitted, application
form alongwith other documents. The
petitioner has also offered land for the
proposed site in Plot No.370/1 M. In support
of proof of availability of land, the petitioner
has submitted, Khatauni of Plot No.370/1 as
well as copy of sale deed dated 26.12.2007
showing purchase of 1/3rd share in Plot
No.370/1. The petitioner also submitted,
consent of her husband who was also cosharer in Plot No.370/1. The Khatauni
submitted by the petitioner shows that Plot
No.370/1 is also co-shared by other persons
including husband of the petitioner.

4. Thereafter, a complaint was received
against
the
petitioner
regarding
the
potentiality
of
her
land.
Thereafter,
investigation was conducted regarding the
potentiality of land of the petitioner. In the
investigation report, it was found that the plot
submitted by the petitioner was also owned
by several persons including husband of the
petitioner and consent of other co-sharer was
not submitted alongwith the application form
but submitted only after completion of
interview.

5. Interview for the aforesaid
selection was held on 12.11.2010 and result
was declared on 12.11.2010 in which
following
candidates
were
declared
qualified :

(i)
Smt.
Kiran
Tripathi
(respondent no.5);

(ii) Deepshikha Mishra and;

(iii) Sudha Devi (petitioner).

6. Result dated 12.11.2010, shows
that petitioner was awarded zero marks.
Therefore, that result dated 12.11.2010 was
challenged by the petitioner. Against that
result, petitioner submitted a representation
dated 22.11.2010. In that representation
petitioner not only challenged the result
dated 12.11.2010 but also challenged the
resident certificate issued to respondent
no.5 on the ground that respondent no.5 is
not resident of District-Chitrakoot. The
above representation was rejected during
pendency of the present petition, by order
dated 11.04.2011.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that plot no.370/1 was initially
owned by three co-sharer namely, Sidh
Gopal, Sri Jageshwar Prasad and Sri Kesan
Prasad. Petitioner has purchased 1/3rd
share of Sidh Gopal and constructed a
boundary over it and husband of the
petitioner Ashok Kumar had purchased
area 9.5 biswa out of the share of Sri
Jageshwar Prasad and remaining 6 biswa
was purchased by Sri Bhupendra and share
of Kesan Prasad was purchased by Maya
Devi, Raj Shree and Meena. As the
petitioner had purchased entire share of
Sidh Pal which was clearly demarcated,
therefore, there was no need to file consent
of other co-sharers. Learned counsel for the
petitioner
further
submits
that
the
impugned order dated 11.04.2011 is
erroneous and arbitrary because even
otherwise he had filed consent of her
6 All. Smt. Sudha Devi Vs. Union of India & Ors.
463
husband who is co-sharer in Plot No.370/1
and, thereafter, consent of other co-sharers
were filed immediately after conclusion of
interview. It is further submitted that as per
the relevant guidelines of Indian Oil
Corporation where the share of the
petitioner is more than required, then there
is no need to submit any consent of other
co-sharers.

8. In support of his contention,
learned counsel for the petitioner has relied
upon the judgment passed in Writ C
No.54357 of 2013 (Saurav Mittal vs
Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. and 2
Others). Learned counsel for the petitioner
also submitted that the order dated
04.02.2011 of ADM Mau who restored the
resident certificate of respondent no.5
which was previously cancelled by order
dated 15.12.2010 is also incorrect because
respondent no.5 is not the resident of
District-Chitrakoot
because
after
the
marriage she shifted Lucknow alongwith
her husband.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioner
lastly submits that Indian Oil Corporation
who has awarded the zero marks to the
petitioner for the potentiality of land
though he had offered specific portion of
the land which was more than required and
halka Lekhpal also stated in his report that
the land of the petitioner was surrounded
by a boundary wall.

10. On the other hand, learned
counsel for the respondents submit that
impugned orders are absolutely correct and
the petitioner did not submit consent of
other co-sharers, therefore, she is not
entitled to award any marks for the
potentiality of land and also domicile
certificate issued by the SDM is valid as
the same was issued on the basis of proper
enquiry report.

11. Guidelines of the Indian Oil
Corporation Ltd. annexed at page no.11 of
the rejoinder affidavit of the petitioner
prescribes that if the petitioner is joint
owner of any land with other persons then
petitioner
has
to
submit
registered
agreement of other co-sharer alongwith
demarcation of her land. Relevant extract
of guidelines of Indian Oil Corporation is
being quoted below :

"(ख) भूमि का "पक्का प्रस्ताव (Firm offer
of land):

यपद आवेदक के िास स्व-स्वापमत्व अथवा "िाररवाररक"
सदस्यों के सह-स्वापमत्व वाली भूपम उिलब्ि न हो, तो उसके िास अन्य
व्यपियों के स्वापमत्व वाली भूपम प्रस्तापवत करने का पवकल्ि भी है। ऐसी
िररपस्थपत में आवेदक को भू-स्वामी/स्वापमयों का िंजीकृत अनुबन्ि प्रस्तुत
करना होगा।

नोटः- यपद उिरोि आिार िर आवेदक का चयन कर
पलया जाता है तथा वह आवेदन में उपल्लपखत भूपम लेटर ऑफ इन्टेन्ट की
पतपथ से दो माह के अन्दर उिलब्ि नहीं करा िाता है तो आईओसी के िास
आवेदक को प्रदान पकये गये डीलरपशि का आवंटन पनरस्त करने का
अपिकार होगा। भूपम की उियुिता का पनर्सय आईओसी द्वारा पलया
जायेगा। ऐसी पस्थपत में आवेदक से क्रय की गई/लम्बी लीज िर अपजसत
भूपम हेतु ढााँचागत सुपविायें आईओसी द्वारा अिने व्यय िर उिलब्ि कराई
जायेंगी। तथापि आवेदक द्वारा प्रस्तापवत भूपम को स्वीकार करने को
आईओसी पकसी प्रकार प्रपतबद्ध नहीं होगा।

प्रस्तामवत भूमि हेतु अमभलेखः

(ग) आवेदक को (भू-स्वापमत्व सम्बन्िी) पनम्न में से
कोई एक अपभलेख जो पवज्ञािन की पतपथ के िश्चात पनगसत/नवीनीकृत पकया
गया हो, प्रस्तुत करना अपनवायस हैः (i) खसरा/खतौनी अथवा कोई अन्य
समकक्ष राजस्व अपभलेख अथवा भूपम का स्वापमत्व प्रमापर्त करने हेतु
राजस्व अपिकारी द्वारा पनगसत प्रमार्-ित्र। (ii) आवेदक के िक्ष में िंजीकृत
सेल डीड/िंजीकृत लीज डीड (आवेदन की पतपथ िर न्यूनतम अवपि 19
वर्स 11माह ) अथवा स्वापमत्व हस्तान्तररत करने हेतु कोई अन्य
स्थानान्तरर् डीड/अपभलेख।

(घ) प्रस्तापवत भूपम के स्वापमत्व हेतु सरकारी/अिससरकारी, स्वायत्त संस्थायें जैसेः LDA, KDA, DDA, आपद द्वारा
पनगसत लीज एग्रीमेन्ट/आवंटन ित्र स्वीकायस होगें।

(ङ) उिरोि पबन्दु (ग) से (ङ) में उपल्लपखत अपभलेखों
के अपतररि, पनम्न अपभलेख, जो लागू होते हों, संलग्न करेंः
464 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
क्रि
सं.
स्वामित्व की
मस्िमत
भूमि
िें
आवेदक का
अंश
वांमित
आवश्यक
अमभलेख
(भू-
स्वामित्व/
राजस्व
अमभलेख के
अमतररक्त)
आंकल
न स्तर
1.
स्वयं
सम्िूर्स
कोई नहीं
स्वापमत्व
की भूपम
2.
केवल
"िाररवाररक"
सदस्यों द्वारा
कुछ नहीं
आवेदक
के
िक्ष में समस्त
स्वापमयों का
नोटरीकृत
शिथ-ित्र
स्वापमत्व
की भूपम
3.
स्वयं
एवं
केवल
"िाररवाररक"
सदस्यों
के
साथ संयुि
अााांपशक
आवेदक
के
िक्ष में समस्त
सह-स्वापमयों
का नोटरीकृत
शिथ-ित्र
स्वापमत्व
की भूपम
4.
स्वयं
एवं
अन्य के साथ
संयुि
आवेदक का
अंश
आईओसी
द्वारा वांपछत
अंश
से
अपिक
भूपम का भाग
(demarc
ation)
दशासते
हुए
िंजीकृत
अनुबन्ि
(भूपम का वह
भाग
जो
आवेदक द्वारा
डीलरपशि हेतु
प्रस्तापवत है।
स्वापमत्व
की भूपम
5.
स्वयं
एवं
अन्य के साथ
संयुि
आवेदक का
अंश
आईओसी
द्वारा वांपछत
भूपम
से
अपिक
भूपम का भाग
दशासये
पबना
िंजीकृत
अनुबन्ि
(भूपम का वह
भाग
जो
आवेदक द्वारा
डीलरपशि हेतु
प्रस्तापवत है)

िक्का
प्रस्ताव

12. Secondly, for getting resident
certificate, petitioner should be permanent
resident or ordinary resident, this has not
been mentioned in the guidelines or
advertisement.

13. From perusal of record, it appears
that in Plot No.370/1 there were three cosharers namely, Sidh Gopal, Sri Jageshwar
Prasad and Sri Kesan Prasad and each was
having 1/3rd share and there were no
partition in Plot No.370/1 and all the three
persons were joint owner of the above land.
Petitioner purchased 1/3rd share of Sidh
Gopal and her husband also purchased part
of the share of another co-sharer Sri
Jageshwar Prasad, therefore, petitioner has
become co-sharer in Plot No.370/1 with
other co-sharer including her husband. But
at the time of submitting the application
form for retail outlet, petitioner has
submitted the consent of her husband and
consent of other co-sharer was not
submitted at the time of submitting the
application form. As per the guidelines of
Indian Oil Corporation regarding the
allotment of retail outlet which was
annexed by the petitioner herself at page 11
of her rejoinder affidavit specifically shows
that if any land is owned by the petitioner
along with other persons and share of the
petitioner was more than required by Indian
Oil
Corporation
then
petitioner
was
required to submit registered agreement
with other co-sharer showing their consent
alongwith demarcated part of his share but
in the present case petitioner has not
complied the above direction by not filing
consent
of
other
co-sharers
through
registered
agreement
along
with
the
application form, and even not at the time
of interview which was held on 12.11.2010.
The Division Bench of this Court in the
case of Smt. Sangeeta Gupta Vs. Union
of India & Others 2009 (7) ADJ 534 (DB)
observed that required document should be
filed on the last date of submission of
application form. Any document filed
subsequently
cannot
be
taken
into
consideration. Paragraph no.21 of the
above judgement is being quoted as below :
6 All. Smt. Sudha Devi Vs. Union of India & Ors.
465

"21. From perusal of the facts as
narrated above, it is clear that in terms of
the advertisement dated 11.10.2014, an
application form was submitted by the
petitioner for grant of retail outlet
dealership. Since certain discrepancies
were found in the application form
submitted by the petitioner a letter dated
26.5.2016 was written by the respondent
No. 3 to the petitioner. A reply dated
4.6.2016 was submitted by the petitioner
stating therein that the discrepancies were
duly removed. After the aforesaid letter was
received in the office of the respondent
corporation, the corporation rejected the
same vide its order dated 9.7.2016 on the
ground that Clause 4 (Vi) (kha) of the
guidelines were not fulfilled by the
petitioner. It reveals from perusal of the
records
that
while
submitting
the
application
form
the
petitioner
has
submitted certain papers and documents.
Two short comings were pointed out in the
application form of the petitioner namely
khasra/khatauni number is not mentioned
in the lease deed and lease agreement does
not contain any sub lease clause. After the
aforesaid letter was received by the
petitioner he submitted a representation.
Along-with
representation
petitioner
appended the correction dated 4.6.2016
making corrections in the lease deed dated
31.10.2014. By the aforesaid corrections
the petitioner had sought correction in the
lease deed dated 31.10.2014 to the effect
that Plot No. 202 was sought to be
mentioned and for the first time provision
of sub lease in favour of the respondent
corporation was also mentioned. The
petitioner tried to remove the discrepancies
as pointed out by the corporation vide
letter dated 26.5.2016. Apart from the
original lessor of the land two other
persons namely Jaiveer and Havaldar were
also co-sharers in the land. The aforesaid
fact was not disclosed at any point of time
by the petitioner or by Smt. Munni Devi
before respondent corporation. No consent
letters of the aforesaid co-sharers were
submitted by the petitioner along-with his
application form. Apart from the same
corrections, which were made by the
petitioner in the correction deed were also
not liable to be taken into consideration by
the respondent corporation due to the fact
that these corrections are not permissible
after submission of the application form."

14. Similarly, Division Bench of this
Court in the case of Madhu Singh Vs.
Union of India & Others 2013 ADJ
Online 0398 clearly observed that affidavit
of co-owners regarding consent filed after
the submission of application cannot be
taken
into
consideration.
Therefore,
awarding of zero marks under category of
capability to provide infrastructure and
facility is correct. Relevant part of the said
judgment is being quoted as below :

"As the land mentioned in the
application of the petitioner belongs to the
father of the petitioner with certain other
third persons and the petitioner has no
share in the said land, the case of the
petitioner would not fall under any of the
Item nos. 1 to 6 mentioned in the Table
below sub-clause (e) of Clause 14 of the
Brochure. Consequently, the case of the
petitioner would fall under Item no. 7 of the
said Table. The petitioner was, therefore,
required to submit registered agreement
with the co-owners of the said land
mentioned in her application. No such
registered agreement was filed by the
petitioner along with her application.
Therefore, the award of ''zero'' marks to the
petitioner in the category ''capability to
provide infrastructure and facility'' cannot
466 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
be said to suffer from any illegality or
infirmity.

There is one more aspect of the
matter. As is evident from the narration of
the facts above, the petitioner did not file
any affidavit of the co-owners of the land
mentioned in her application along with
her application. It is only after the result of
the selection was declared on 18th April,
2012 that the petitioner along with her
representation filed certain Affidavits.

As noted above, sub-clause (e) of
Clause 10 of the Brochure requires that the
Originals of the Affidavits should be
submitted along with the application. Subclause (h) of Clause 10 imposes clear
prohibition on acceptance or consideration
of any additional documents after the cutoff date of the application."

15. Judgement of Saurav Mittal vs
Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. (supra)
relied upon by the petitioner is not
applicable in the present case because
from the fact of the relied judgement, it is
clear that the land was purchased from
exclusive owner of the land, which he
himself demarcated and specified the
portion sold to the person concerned but
in the present case petitioner had
purchased 1/3rd share of Sidh Gopal who
was not owner of exclusive part in Plot
No.370/1 but he was co-sharer with other
two persons namely, Sri Jageshwar
Prasad and Sri Kesan Prasad.

16. In view of the above, it is clear
that the petitioner filed the consent
affidavits of co-sharers in plot no.370/1
after the submission of application form.
Therefore, the same were rightly not
considered. Therefore, not awarding marks
for potentiality of land (capacity to provide
infrastructure and facility) to petitioner
cannot be said to be erroneous.

17. So far as the issue regarding
domicile certificate of respondent no.5 is
concerned, by order dated 04.02.2011, the
same cannot also be faulted because the
same was passed on the basis of available
evidence before him regarding ordinary
residence of respondent no.5 at her parental
house in District-Chitrakoot.

18. In view of the above facts, there is
no illegality in the impugned orders dated
12.11.2010, 11.04.2011 and 04.02.2011,
therefore, the petition is dismissed.

19. No order as to costs.
----------
(2023) 6 ILRA 466
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 31.05.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SALIL KUMAR RAI, J.
THE HON'BLE ARUN KUMAR SINGH
DESHWAL, J.

Writ-C No. 32728 of 2000

Smt. Ram Pyari Devi & Ors. ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri H.N. Singh, Sri B.N. Singh, Sri Shyamal
Narayan

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri A.K. Singh, Sri G.K. Singh,
Harshita Raghuvanshi, Sri R.N. Singh, Sri
Sri Nath Dwivedi, Sri Ravi Kant (Sr.
Advocate),
Sri
Gajendra
Pratap
(Sr.
Advocate)

A. Civil Law - Nazul Land - Freehold
Right. St. Government issued Government
Order dated 1.12.1998. As per Para 10 of