IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
LPA No.203 of 2006
Sangeeta Singh, W/o Sri Ashwani Kumar Singh, resident of Chandra Niwas,
Kyastha Tola, P.S. Saharsa, District Saharsa .........Appellant
Versus
1. The Indian Oil Corporation , Marketing Division, Regional, through its
General Manager, Bihar Office, Lok Nayak Jai Prakash Bhawan, 5th Floor,
Dak Bunglow Road, Patna .
2. The General Manager, Bihar Office, Lok Nayak Jai Prakash Bhawan, 5th
Floor, Dak Bunglow Road, Patna
3. The Dealer Selection Committee, Indian Oil Corporation Ltd, Marketing
Division, Eastern Region, Sahi Bhawan, Exhibition Road, Patna
4. The Area Manager, Indian Oil Corporation Ltd, Marketing Division, Eastern
Region, Sahi Bhawan, Exhibition Road, Patna
5. The Co-ordinator, Area Office, Indian Oil Corporation Ltd, Marketing
Division, Eastern Region, Sahi Bhawan, Exhibition Road, Patna
6. Sri Ajay Kumar Singh, S/o Sri Shashidhar Singh, resident of Jagdamba
Petroleum, Sahasra Basti District Saharsa
7. Sri Niraj Kumar Singh, S/o Sri Mahendra Narayan Singh, resident of Supaul,
P.S and District Supaul
8. Sri Suresh Kumar Agrawal, S/o late Shankar Lal Agrawal, resident of Supaul,
P.S and District Supaul .........Respondents
-----------------
For the appellant: Mr. Binod Kr. Kanth, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Anil Kr. Upadhaya, Advocate
For the respondent (IOC.): Mr. K. D. Chatterji, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Amlesh Kumar Verma, Advocate
For the respondent no.6: Mr. Krishna Kr. Singh, Advocate
For the respondent no.7: Mr. Ajay Kr. Singh, Advocate
———–
13 10-12-2010 Heard the parties.
This letters patent appeal has been preferred
against the judgement and order dated 8-2-2006 passed
by a learned Single Judge of this court whereby the writ
petition bearing CWJC no. 9605/2004 preferred by the
appellant was dismissed. The writ court in the impugned
order has noticed that the appellant had challenged the
select list prepared by the Indian Oil Corporation
2
pursuant to an advertisement which is said to be dated
29-2-2004. According to the appellant the selection
process was vitiated and required interference of this
court but the writ court dismissed the writ petition
summarily on the ground that decision was commercial
decision which should not be interfered by this court.
Learned counsel for the appellant has raised all
the grounds raised before the writ court inviting us to
hold that the select list should be quashed because of
irregularities in the selection process. It is not necessary
for us to go into the details of these submissions in view
of a fair stand taken by Mr. Chatterji, learned Senior
counsel for the Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. He has
placed before us the findings given by a team of two
members constituting a High Power Committee which
had looked into selection process in question relating to
grant of licence for retail vending of LPG at Supaul. As
per the findings certain irregularities were found in the
selection process and the main irregularity noticed was in
the act of the Dealer Selection Committee taking
cognizance of documents submitted at the time of
3
interview instead restricting the evaluation on the basis
of documents submitted at the time of application.
Learned counsel for the Corporation has taken
a stand that in view of findings of the High Power
Committee under the scheme of the Corporation
candidates have to be called for re-interview so that
irregularities noticed by the High Power Committee are
avoided and fresh evaluation is done as per policy
decision and guidelines of the Corporation.
Learned counsel for the respondent no.7, Niraj
Kumar Singh, has submitted that the selection process
was indeed erroneous but subsequent findings of the
High Power Committee are in favour of placing of
respondent no.7 as number one candidate in the select
list. It goes without saying that the High Power
Committee cannot be substituted in place of the Dealer
Selection Committee and, therefore, re-interview as per
established schemes and policy is required to be held.
Re-interview by Dealer Selection Committee should be
held properly and in accordance with law within a
reasonable time, preferably, within three months.
4
In the result, the order under appeal is
modified and substituted by this order. The appeal stands
disposed of.
(Shiva Kirti Singh, J.)
BKS/- (Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J.)