IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATE: 24-09-2008 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JAICHANDREN Writ Petition No.4367 of 2001 M.Selvi .. Petitioner. Versus 1. Indian Oil Corporation Tamil Nadu State Office, reptd. By its General Manager, 139, Nungambakkam High Road, Chennai-600 034. 2.Dealer Selection Board, No.5, Bregathambal road, Nungambakkam, Chennai-600 034. 3.Mrs.K.Chittukala 4.Mrs.C.Komalavalli 5.The Deputy Tahsildar, Ponamaravathi Taluk, Thrumayam, Pudukkottai District. (R5 impleaded as per order of Court, dated 4.12.2001, in W.P.M.P.No.35032 of 2001) .. Respondents. Prayer: This petition has been filed seeking for a writ of Mandamus, forbearing the 1st respondent from allowing of running of the Retail Outlet of Petrol-Diesel at Ponnamaravathi, Pudukkottai District, by the third respondent, pursuant to the selection, dated 14.12.2000, and direct the 1st respondent to award the Retail Outlet Dealership of Petrol/Diesel of Ponnamaravathi, Pudukkottai District to the petitioner herein. For Petitioner : Mr.R.Sekaran For Respondents : Mr.P.N.Radhakrishnan (R1 & R2) Mr.M.Muthappan (R3) Ms.D.Geetha Additional Government Pleader (R5) O R D E R
Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents.
2. It has been stated that the petitioner is a resident of Pudukkottai Revenue District. The first respondent had called for applications for appointment of Petrol-Diesel Retail Outlet Dealers, by an advertisement in the English Newspaper, `The Hindu’, dated 16.7.2000. The location of the retail outlet was at Ponnamaravathi, Pudukottai District, allotted to “Open (Reserved for Women) category”. One of the conditions for a candidate to be eligible for allotment of the retail outlet for Ponnamaravathi, is that the candidate should be a resident of the Revenue District of Pudukkottai. Since the petitioner was a resident of the Revenue District of Pudukkottai and as she is a graduate she was eligible to apply for the dealership.
3. By a communication, dated 27.11.2000, the second respondent had requested the petitioner to appear for an interview, on 14.12.2000, at Chennai. The third respondent had also appeared for the interview, along with the petitioner. The results of the selection was displayed on the Notice Board at the place where the interview was held. The third respondent was shown as No.1 in the list of selected candidates. The petitioner was in the No.3 position. One Komalavalli, the fourth respondent herein, was shown in the second position. Later, the petitioner had come to know that the third respondent was not eligible to be considered for allotment of the retail outlet for the reason that she was not a resident of Pudukkottai, on the date of the application. In fact the third respondent was a resident of Trichy District. Therefore, the application of the third respondent ought to have been rejected even before she had been called for the interview. On verification of the Voters list, the third respondent’s name was found in the Trichy-2, constituency. Even in her ration card, she was shown to be living, along with her husband, at Trichy. The third respondent had mislead the first and second respondents into selecting the third respondent for the allotment of the Petrol-Diesel Retail Outlet for Ponnamaravathi.
4. It has also been stated that the fourth respondent is also ineligible for being placed at the second position in the list of selected candidates as her family income is more than rupees two lakhs per year. As per the eligibility condition, the concerned candidate should furnish details of the income, including the sources for the same. It has also been stated that since the petitioner is a graduate, who is experienced in running a business, the retail outlet for Ponnamaravathi should have been allotted to her, as she possesses all the necessary qualifications. In such circumstances, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
5. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the first respondent, the allegations made by the petitioner have been denied. It has been stated that the process of selection of dealership is within the jurisdiction of the second respondent Board. The first respondent had advertised in the newspapers requiring dealers for Petrol/Diesel in the specific locations of the area concerned. The eligibility of the candidates had also been specified. The second respondent Board would interview the eligible candidates and the selection would be made based on the guidelines and the procedures issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas, as amended from time to time. After the completion of the selection process, the merit panel, consisting of the names of the three candidates, who have secured the highest marks, would be prepared. After the receipt of the merit list, a field investigation would be conducted by the first respondent, relating to the candidate, who had secured the first rank in the order of merit, in order to verify whether the candidate has complied with all the requirements necessary for the allotment of the dealership and to verify whether the statements made by the candidate in his or her application are true and correct, including the facts relating to the candidate’s residence, solvency etc. Thereafter, a field investigation report is prepared by the field officer concerned and the said report is forwarded to the first respondent through the Divisional Manager concerned. After the field investigation report is found to be in order, a letter of intent is issued to the candidate, giving sufficient time to meet the specified requirements, including the obtaining of the Trading Licences and for raising the necessary funds for the working capital for the business. If the conditions of the letter of intent are complied with by the candidate concerned, within the time specified, the said candidate would be given the letter of appointment and the dealership agreement is entered into. If there are deficiencies found in the report or the conditions of the letter of intent are not complied with by the candidate, the process is repeated for the candidate, who is placed in the next position in the order of merit. If the second candidate had also failed to fulfil all the requirements, the candidate placed in the third position would be considered by following the same procedure. In case, all the three candidates in the order of merit are found wanting, the process is started all over again by making a fresh advertisement for the dealership.
6. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the second respondent Board, it has been stated that the Board, has been provided with detailed guidelines in the Manual for the selection of Dealers/Distributors, issued by the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas, Government of India, New Delhi, dated 14.10.98, as amended from time to time. The guidelines have sufficient built-in safeguards to provide transparent, uniform, fair and faster procedure for the selection of the suitable candidates as Dealers and Distributors. The Board is comprised of three members headed by the Chairman, who is an appointee of the Government and who should be either a retired High Court Judge or a retired District Judge. Of the two other members, one will be from the concerned Oil Company in whose location the interview will be held and the other member will be from any other Oil Company. Both the members should be holding a rank not below that of the Chief Manager of the concerned Oil Company. Eligible candidates are called for the interview. The board will consider the suitability of the candidates for the distributorship by assessing the various aspects and by awarding marks, in accordance with the prescribed guidelines. Based on the marks allotted the candidates would be graded in the order of merit.
7. It has been further stated that the third respondent had produced authenticated documents in support of her claim that she is a permanent resident of Ponnamaravathi in Pudukottai District and based on the marks obtained by her, the third respondent was placed in the first position in the priority list. The allegation made by the petitioner that the third respondent had misled the respondents herein is unfounded and there is no proof of any such misrepresentation or fraud. The selection of the candidates was purely on merits, as per the guidelines prescribed by the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas, Government of India.
8. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the third respondent, it has been stated that the allegations made by the petitioner are false and frivolous and incorrect and they are not based on facts. The allegations have been made by the petitioner without verifying the relevant documents filed by the third respondent. In a writ petition filed before this Court, in W.P.No.1254 of 2001, filed by the fourth respondent herein, this Court had issued directions to the Deputy Tahsildar, Head Quarters, Thirumayam, to hold an enquiry, with regard to the residence of third respondent and to issue a residence certificate, on merits. The Deputy Tahsildar had confirmed the fact that the third respondent is a resident of Valayapatti, Ponnamavarathi, Pudukkottai District. While so, it is not open to the petitioner to challenge the correctness of the certificate issued by the Deputy Tahsildar, on 6.9.2001. All the necessary documents produced by the third respondent to the first and second respondents herein had shown that the third respondent was a permanent resident of Pudukottai Revenue District. Since the third respondent’s husband was having a branch unit of his small scale business in a rented house in Tiruchirapalli, where the third respondent’s children were staying for the purpose of their education, she had arranged for a separate ration card and she had also applied for a separate telephone connection in the said place.
9. It has been further stated that the officers of the first respondent Indian Oil Corporation had verified the correctness of the certificate of residence of the third respondent and only thereafter, she had been called for the interview. After the allotment of the dealership, the third respondent had commenced the business, on 27.5.2001, and she has continued to run the business thereafter, without any break.
10. The Deputy Tahsildar, Thirumayam, who was impleaded as the fifth respondent in the present writ petition, by an order of this Court, dated 4.12.2001, in W.P.M.P.No.35032 of 2001, has filed a counter affidavit, stating that, pursuant to the orders passed by this court, on 9.8.2001, he had issued notices to the parties concerned, on 31.8.2001, calling upon them for an enquiry, which was held on 5.9.2001. The parties had appeared before the fifth respondent, on 5.9.2001, along with the documents in support of their claims. The fifth respondent had also recorded their statements. Though the petitioner had stated that she had produced a certificate, dated 28.8.2001, from the Zonal Deputy Tahsildar, Tiruchirapalli Town, to show that the third respondent was a resident of Tiruchirappalli Town, the said certificate did not bear any reference number or certificate number of the concerned Taluk Office from where it was issued. There was no reference as to who had applied for the said certificate and under what circumstances. The Minutes of the Enquiry had been recorded by the fifth respondent stating that the certificate produced by the petitioner could not be accepted. Reasons have been given by the fifth respondent to come to such a conclusion. As a result of the enquiry and based on the available records, he had confirmed that the certificate already issued, on 14.8.2000, certifying that the third respondent is a resident of No.5, Sankaran Kundu South, Valayapatti, Ponnamaravathi, Thirumayam Taluk, Pudukottai District, is in order. Since the enquiry had been conducted, after giving reasonable opportunity to the parties concerned and since all the relevant records had been considered, the claims of the petitioner that the certificate issued to the third respondent, relating to her residence, is incorrect, cannot be sustained.
11. In view of the avements made on behalf of the petitioner, as well as the respondents, and on a perusal of the records available, it is clear that the petitioner has not shown sufficient cause or reason for this Court to interfere with the allotment made in favour of the third respondent, by the first and second respondents. Nothing has been shown by the petitioner to substantiate her allegations that the selection process is arbitrary and illegal. The selection process for allotment of the Petrol-Diesel Retail Outlet for Ponnamaravathi in Pudukottai District is only in accordance with the guidelines prescribed by the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas, Government of India.
12. Further, the report of the fifth respondent, Deputy Tahsildar, is, clearly, in support of the third respondent, who was selected for the allotment of the retail outlet. The fifth respondent has confirmed the fact that the third respondent is a resident of Pudukottai Revenue District, which is one the qualifications for applying for the dealership. Unless, the petitioner is able to establish that the selection process, followed by the first and second respondents, is arbitrary, biased, or contrary to the guidelines prescribed for the process of selection, the selection of the third respondent for the allotment of the dealership, by the first and second respondents, cannot be set aside. In such circumstances, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs.
csh
To
1. The General Manager,
Indian Oil Corporation
Tamil Nadu State Office,
139, Nungambakkam High Road,
Chennai-600 034.
2.The Deputy Tahsildar,
Ponamaravathi Taluk, Thrumayam,
Pudukkottai District