Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 51 (ALL)

PRADEEP SINGH v. UNION OF INDIA

2006-01-05

R.K.AGRAWAL, SAROJ BALA

body2006
JUDGMENT By the Court—By means of the present writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, Pradeep Singh, who was an applicant for allotment of Retail Outlet of Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. at Rohua, Mustafabad, Varanasi-Azamgarh Road, District Azamgarh seeks writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the allotment order dated 6.10.2004 and for a writ of mandamus directing the respondent authorities to reconsider the matter of allotment of the petrol pump in question. 2. Briefly stated the facts giving rise to the present petition are as follows : M/s Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., Respondent No. 2 published an advertisement on 8th July, 2004 in Hindi Daily ‘Dainik Jagran’ inviting applications for allotment of Petrol Pump Retail Outlets including the one at Rohua Mustafabad, Varanasi-Azamgarh Road, District Azamgarh. The petitioner, as also some other persons, applied for the same. The Selection Committee considered the applications of all the eligible applicants and selected respondent No. 3 as the eligible person for allotment of Retail Outlet. The allotment order dated 6.10.2004 is under challenge in the present petition. 3. We have heard Shri G.K. Singh learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Shri Tarun Verma, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent No. 2 and Shri Shakir Mezan, learned Counsel appearing for Respondent No. 3. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Indian Oil Corporation i.e. respondent No. 2 was pre-determined to allot the Retail Outlet in favour of respondent No. 2 inasmuch as the respondent No. 3 had already obtained a No Objection Certificate on 17.6.2004 from the District Magistrate, Azamgarh i.e. much before the advertisement in question had been issued on 8.7.2004, which establishes the fact that the respondent No. 3 was well aware of the fact that an advertisement shall be issued afterwards for which a No Objection Certificate from the District Magistrate was required and the authorities of the respondent No. 2 were in collusion with the respondent No. 3 and it is for this reason the retail outlet has been allotted to him even though he was lesser qualified as compared to the petitioner. 5. Shri Singh further submitted that the petitioner is a Post Graduate and has also graduate in Law. Therefore, he was entitled for 3 additional marks regarding such qualifications. 5. Shri Singh further submitted that the petitioner is a Post Graduate and has also graduate in Law. Therefore, he was entitled for 3 additional marks regarding such qualifications. He further submitted that the petitioner had a clear title of the land required for opening of the Retail Outlet for which he was entitled for award of 35 marks, whereas the Selection Committee has arbitrarily awarded 32.1 marks only. According to him the respondent No. 3 did not have a clear title of the land needed for opening of the Retail Outlet, as he along with his mother and brother are the joint/co-owner of the land and, therefore, the marks, awarded to respondent No. 3 for the land if any, could not have exceeded 25 whereas he has been awarded 33 marks. 6. Shri Tarun Verma, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent No. 2 submitted that under Clause 18 of the Brochure dated 1.11.04 published by the Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. for selection of Petrol/Diesel Retail Outlet Dealers, it has been specifically provided that the aggrieved person may send the complaint to IOC, which would be investigated and a decision would be taken by the Senior Officers of the Corporation and, therefore, the petitioner should be asked to avail of the Redressal Forum provided under the Brochure. He further submitted that the selection has been made by a Committee consisting of three persons and the plea of collusion is baseless. According to him the No Objection Certificate was applied in respect of an earlier application and it does not establishes any intention or pre-determination on the part of the Corporation to allot the Retail Outlet in favour of the respondent No. 3. According to him the Selection Committee has awarded marks on the basis of the evaluation of the various parameters and this Court in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India should ordinarily not interfere in the process of selection made by the Committee. 7. According to him the Selection Committee has awarded marks on the basis of the evaluation of the various parameters and this Court in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India should ordinarily not interfere in the process of selection made by the Committee. 7. Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties, we find that even though, the No Objection Certificate had been applied for by the respondent No. 3 much before the advertisement in question was issued and the No Objection Certificate had been issued by the District Magistrate on 17th June, 2004, the date of advertisement being 8th July, 2004, it does not have any material bearing on the selection for allotment of Retail Outlet in question inasmuch as the selection has been done by a three members Committee against which there is no allegation of mala fide. The selection has been made on the basis of the marks awarded under individual heads and therefore the issuance of No Objection Certificate, prior to the advertisement, will have no effect at all on such selection. So far as the marks allotted for land is concerned, we find that under clause 16.1 of the Brochure, marks for evaluating the candidate have been given. It also provides for allocation of marks on various parameters as applicable to individuals. Maximum marks of 35 have been provided for applicants, who have clear title to the land/registered sale deed and willing to give to the Company on a long-term lease or/on purchase basis. However, the evaluation is based on leading questions and also after verifying the documents submitted. So far as, the evaluation is concerned, it has been provided in clause 14.1 of the Brochure, which gives various percentage of weightage in respect of different category/utility of land. The submission of Shri Singh that, as the petitioner had clear title over the land, he should have been allotted the maximum 35 marks is not correct inasmuch as the Committee has evaluated his land according to the marks/weightage given in clause 14.1 of the Brochure. Even otherwise mere having clear title to the land would not entitle a person for award of maximum 35 marks as the land itself may suffer from many disadvantages. 8. Even otherwise mere having clear title to the land would not entitle a person for award of maximum 35 marks as the land itself may suffer from many disadvantages. 8. So far on the question of clear title of respondent No. 3 over the land is concerned, we find that under clause 14 of the brochure, it has been specifically mentioned that land owned by family members will also be considered as belonging to the applicant subject to producing the consent of the concerned family members. Thus the land held by the respondent No. 3 jointly with his mother and brother has rightly been considered as that belonging to the respondent No. 3 for the purposes of considering the eligibility and award of marks. 9. Thus, the plea that the petitioner was entitled for 35 marks under the heading ‘Land and Infrastructure’ cannot be sustained. So far as, the marks awarded under the Heading ‘Educational Qualification’ are concerned, we find that 12 marks have been awarded both to the petitioner and the respondent No. 3. The petitioner claims to be a law graduate, whereas the respondent No. 3 claims to hold a Certificate of Diploma in Civil Engineering from U.P. Tax Board, Lucknow. Whether or not respondent No. 3 could have been awarded the additional three marks on account of technical qualification we are not going into that question. However, even if the claim of the petitioner that he is a law graduate is accepted and he is awarded three addition marks, the position would not change as even after awarding three marks his total marks would come to 73.3 marks, whereas the respondent No. 3 has got 76 marks. 10. In this view, of the matter, we do not find any merit in this petition, which dismissed with costs, which we fix at Rs. 5,000/- payable to the respondent No. 3. Petition Dismissed. ————