Jayant Shahuraj Sonawane vs. Indian Oil Corporation LTD And Another

Held

The Court held that the petitioner was rightly declared ineligible. On the first issue, it was found that the advertisement clearly required a "registered long lease" as defined in its terms, and a notarized agreement did not meet this requirement. The Court emphasized that qualifications must be judged as of the last date for receiving applications, which was December 24, 2018. Regarding the second issue, the Court held that Section 47 of the Registration Act, 1908, does not come into play before the actual registration of the document. The Court noted that the Supreme Court's decision in Swapnil Singh (supra) was binding and had already addressed similar contentions, holding that a notarized document was insufficient. The Court also observed that the lease/confirmation deed was executed on January 1, 2020, and fees paid on June 19, 2019, were found deficient, further complicating the claim. The Court found no reason to interfere with IOCL's decision. The writ petition was dismissed.

Facts

The petitioner, Jayant S/o Shahuraj Sonawane, filed a writ petition challenging a communication dated November 27, 2019, from Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. (IOCL). IOCL declared the petitioner ineligible for a retail outlet dealership at village Balsur, taluka Omerga, district Osmanabad. The ground for ineligibility was that the lease deed for the proposed land was not registered by the application deadline of December 24, 2018. The lease deed was registered on June 29, 2019. The petitioner argued that a notarized lease agreement dated December 20, 2018, submitted with the application, should suffice, or alternatively, Section 47 of the Registration Act, 1908, should make the registration relate back to the notarization date. IOCL contended that the advertisement and brochure required a "registered long lease" as per their norms, and a notarized agreement was insufficient.

Key Issues

1. Whether a notarized lease agreement, submitted with an application for a retail outlet dealership, constitutes sufficient compliance with the advertisement's requirement for a "registered long lease" as of the application deadline? (Question of law and fact, turning on the interpretation of the advertisement and the nature of the lease agreement). 2. Whether Section 47 of the Registration Act, 1908, can be invoked to deem the lease registered from the date of notarization, thereby satisfying the eligibility criteria? (Question of law, turning on the interpretation of Section 47 of the Registration Act, 1908). Petitioner's arguments: The notarized lease agreement dated December 20, 2018, should be treated as sufficient compliance. Alternatively, Section 47 of the Registration Act, 1908, dictates that the registration date relates back to December 20, 2018. Respondents' arguments: The advertisement and brochure explicitly required a "registered long lease." A notarized agreement is not equivalent to a registered lease. The Supreme Court decision in Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. vs. Swapnil Singh (Civil Appeal Nos. 6928-6929 of 2015) is binding and supports their contention that only a registered lease deed is acceptable as of the application deadline.