Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 208 (JHR)

Ghanshyam Das v. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.

2004-02-24

AMARESHWAR SAHAY

body2004
JUDGMENT Amareshwar Sahay, J. 1. The Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., by an advertisement published in the newspaper on 02.09.2000, invited applications for Petrol-Diesel dealer retail outlet and other dealerships for different areas from the eligible candidates fulfilling the eligibility criteria mentioned in the said advertisement including that of Petrol-Diesel retail outlet in Ranchi town (H.E.C., Ranchi). The said advertisement has been annexed as Annexure 1 to the present writ application, 2. The writ petitioner has challenged the grant of dealership of Petrol- Diesel retail outlet in favour of the respondent No. 4, Smt. Rinku Rai by the Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. for Ranchi town (H.E.C. Ranchi) on two grounds firstly, that the respondent No. 4 was not a resident of Ranchi district and secondly that her annual income was more than Rs. 2 lakhs per annum and, therefore, she was not eligible for grant of the aforesaid dealership in view of the eligibility criteria fixed by the Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. as mentioned in the advertisement (Annexure 1). The prayer of the petitioner in this writ application is to quash the grant of the aforesaid dealership in favour of the respondent No. 4 and for direction to Respondent-Indian Oil Corporation to grant the said dealership in his favour. 3. The case of the petitioner is that pursuant to the aforesaid advertisement (Annexure 1), he as well as other persons applied for the dealership of the retail Petrol-Diesel outlet in Ranchi town (H.E.C. Ranchi). In all respect he was fulfilling all the eligibility criteria fixed/framed for the award of the said dealership. It has been stated that the candidates were interviewed by the Dealer Selection Board, constituted for the said purpose, selected the candidates by preparing the panel of three candidates in order to preference. According to the petitioner, in the said panel of three candidates his name appears at Serial No. 3, whereas the name of respondent No. 4 Smt. Rinku Rai figures at Serial No. 1, and the name of Rabindra Pradhan figures at Serial No. 2. 4. According to the petitioner, in the said panel of three candidates his name appears at Serial No. 3, whereas the name of respondent No. 4 Smt. Rinku Rai figures at Serial No. 1, and the name of Rabindra Pradhan figures at Serial No. 2. 4. The plea of the petitioner is that the respondent No. 4 is not a resident of the district of Ranchi, rather she after her marriage, is residing permanently at Bhagalpur with her husband, who is a Government servant and, therefore, being not a resident of Ranchi, she did not fulfil the eligibility criteria fixed/framed by the Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. It is asserted that only the residents of Ranchi district were eligible to apply for the aforesaid dealership. The second objection of the petitioner is that the total annual income of the petitioner including that of her husband is more than Rs. 2 lakhs per annum and, therefore, on that ground also she was not eligible for the said dealership, in view of the fact that the eligibility criteria was that the applicant must not have his/her annual income of more than Rs. 2 lakhs per annum. Therefore, her selection and her placement at Serial No. 1 in the select panel was illegal and was not justified. 5. With regard to Rabindra Pradhan, the person, who has been placed at Serial No. 2 in the said select panel, it has been stated by the petitioner that he was having income much more than Rs. 2 lakhs per annum as he was having a Commercial Complex, named as Pradhan Tower at Ranchi and, therefore, he was not fulfilling the eligibility criteria. 6. The said Rabindra Pradhan placed at Serial No. 2 in the select panel has not been made a party in the writ application filed by the petitioner. 7. On the other hand, on behalf of the respondent Nos, 1 and 2 and by respondent No. 4, Smt. Rinku Rai, two separate counter-affidavits have been filed challenging and controverting the claim of the petitioner. An objection has been taken by the respondent No. 4 that the writ application itself is not maintainable at the instance of the petitioner, who admittedly is at Serial No. 3 in the select panel. An objection has been taken by the respondent No. 4 that the writ application itself is not maintainable at the instance of the petitioner, who admittedly is at Serial No. 3 in the select panel. It is submitted that even if the plea of the petitioner is accepted for the sake of argument, the dealership cannot be awarded to him as he is at Serial No. 3 in order of preference and in any case, unless and until the person placed at Serial No. 2, i.e., Mr. Rabindra Pradhan is eliminated from the said select list the writ petitioner cannot be awarded the said dealership. The said Rabindra Pradhan, the person placed at Serial No. 2 in the select list has not been made a party in the writ application and, therefore, the writ petitioner has no locus standi to challenge the award of the aforesaid dealership in favour of the respondent No. 4. 8. It has further been asserted by the respondent No. 4 that since her husband is a Government servant and his service is transferable and, therefore, after the marriage, she is residing permanently at Ranchi and her children are also studying at Ranchi. In support of her statement, she has annexed a copy of the residential certificate issued in her favour by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Ranchi, Ration-card, a copy of the Telephone Bill, a copy of the voter list of the Ranchi Assembly Constituency for the year 1995. According to the respondent No. 4 the aforesaid documents clearly establishes the fact that she is the resident of Ranchi and, therefore, she was fulfilling all the eligibility criteria for the said dealership. 9. Controverting the statement of the petitioner, that her annual income Including that of her husband Is more than Rs. 2 lakhs per annum it has been stated that the same is wrong. In support of her case, a copy of the income tax return filed by her husband before the income tax authority for the assessment year 2001-2002 has been annexed and it has been asserted that her annual income including that of her husband is far less than Rs. 2 lakhs per annum and, therefore, she was fulfilling the income eligibility criteria also as framed down by the Corporation. 10. The stand of the respondent Nos. 2 lakhs per annum and, therefore, she was fulfilling the income eligibility criteria also as framed down by the Corporation. 10. The stand of the respondent Nos. 1 and 2, Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. is that, it is only the Dealer Selection Board headed by a retired Judge, which selects the candidates solely on the basis of eligibility criteria and the Corporation has no role to play in selection of the candidates, except that of awarding the dealership on the basis of the select panel prepared finally In order of preference by the Dealer Selection Board. It is further asserted by the Corporation that even according to the field investigation report, the respondent No. 4 Smt. Rinku Rai was found to be eligible fulfilling the criteria framed by the Corporation for award of the dealership. 11. It is asserted by the respondent No. 4 that dealership has already been granted to the respondent No. 4 and she is running the Petrol-Diesel retail outlet since 11.02.2002. 12. From the averments made in the counter-affidavit filed by the respondent No. 4 and the documents annexed with the same, I find that the petitioner has prima facie failed to establish the fact that the respondent No. 4 is not the resident of district of Ranchi and that she had annual income including that of her husband of more than Rs. 2 lakhs per annum. 13. Further I find that in any view of the matter, the petitioner who was placed at Serial No. 3 in the select panel list, cannot be said to be entitled for award of the said dealership, unless the name of the person placed at Serial No. 2, namely, Rabindra Pradhan is eliminated. But in view of the fact that the said Rabindra Pradhan has not been made a party in the said writ application the claim of the petitioner inter se Rabindra Pradhan the person at Serial No. 2 in the select panel cannot be decided in his absence. Therefore, I find that the claim of the petitioner for awarding of dealership in his favour is not maintainable. 14. Accordingly, I find no merit in this writ application and is thus dismissed.