Loading...

High Court Jharkhand High Court

Mahendra Prakash Jain vs Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. And … on 23 August, 2001

Jharkhand High Court
Mahendra Prakash Jain vs Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. And … on 23 August, 2001
Author: S Mukhopadhaya
Bench: S Mukhopadhaya


ORDER

S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J.

1. This writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner for a direction on the respondents to interview the petitioner for consideration of his case along with others for grant of dealership of Petrol Pumps in connection with Applications No. 11498 and 3301, both dated 19th June, 1998.

2. The case of the petitioner is that in pursuance of advertisement, published in the newspaper The Telegraph on 14th May, 1998, he applied for dealership of Petrol Pumps under open category for the area Jamshedpur (Circuit House) and Sakchi, Bistupur Area, Jamshedpur. They were registered as Applications No. 3301 and 11498, both dated 19th June, 1998 for Circuit House Area and Bistupur Area respectively. It is alleged that the petitioner, thereafter, waited for interview and could not receive any reply inspite of repeated visits in the office of Indian Oil Corporation, but suddenly came to know in June, 2001 that the respondents have taken steps and called for interview for appointment of dealers for the Petrol Pumps aforesaid. The petitioner requested to call him for such interview by letter dated 11th June, 2001 but no action having been taken by the authorities, has to prefer this writ petition.

3. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents, opposing the writ petition. According to them, in pursuance of advertisement dated 14th May, 1998 no interview could take place, as Dealers Selection Board was not constituted by the Central Government. About two years having passed, a fresh advertisement was published in the newspapers, including ‘Prabhat Khabar’ on 2nd September, 2000, calling for applications for dealership of Petrol Pumps under open category in different areas including Circuit House Area and Sakchi, Bistupur Area, both at Jamshedpur. In the said advertisement, enclosed as Annexure R/1, it was shown that

a fresh advertisement was published in place of the earlier advertisement, as was published in May, 1998 in different newspapers.

Counsel for the respondents relied on the advertisement dated 2nd September. 2000 to suggest that the dates of earlier advertisement were mentioned against each of the Area and under Clause 10, while last date of submission of application was fixed as 18th October, 2000, in the note below the said Clause, it was specifically mentioned that those, who earlier applied for dealership for such Area in pursuance of earlier advertisement, will have to apply afresh, but they are not required to deposit fresh application fee along with the new applications and eligibility on the date of earlier application will be taken into consideration to decide the claim.

It was submitted by the counsel for the respondents that the petitioner having not applied afresh, his earlier applications were ignored in terms with item No. 4 of the note, below Clause 10 of the advertisement and the petitioner was not called for interview.

4. Counsel for the petitioner indirectly assailed the advertisement on the ground that the respondents could not have ignored the earlier applications, but the advertisement not being under challenge, such issue can not be determined in the present case.

5. Counsel for the petitioner also suggested that the petitioner was discriminated, having earlier applied and that the authority should have intimated the matter to the petitioner. But such submission can not be accepted, as proper intimation was given to all, including the petitioner, advertisement having been published in newspapers on 2nd September, 2000, including ‘Prabhat Khabar’.

6. In the facts and circumstances, the petitioner having not applied in pursuance of the subsequent advertisement and in terms of the note, below Clause 10, his earlier applications having stood ignored, no relief can be granted, as sought for.

7. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.

8. Writ petition dismissed.