Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 336 (JK)

Anil Rattan v. Bharat Petroleum Corpn. Ltd.

2009-07-14

J.P.SINGH

body2009
1. Questioning Goutam Sharma respondent no. 3s selection and appointment as Retail Outlet Dealer for Mand (Udhampur), pursuant to Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limiteds Notice, published in Daily Excelsiors issue of December 6, 2003, the petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking quashing of the selection and appointment of respondent no. 3 as Retail Outlet Dealer of the Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd., `the Corporation for short. 2. Respondent no. 3 has asserted the petitioner to be ineligible to seek consideration for selection as dealer, in that, he was already running a Retail Outlet Dealership at Udhampur, after the death of his father, who had been running it under the name and style of M/s Vasdev and Sons. 3. Reliance is placed by the petitioner on a Power of Attorney executed by Bimla Devi, Vasdevs wife, who after the death of Vasdev, had been taken as dealer by the Corporation, appointing her other son and respondent no. 3, as attorney to assist her in running the dealership, And on the Partnership Deed, which Bimla Devi has executed with Rattan Kumar Sharma, her other son, for running the affairs of the Retail Outlet, to project that M/s Vasdev and Sons outlet, was, in fact and in essence, a Retail Outlet run by respondent no. 3, which in terms of the eligibility condition prescribed by the Corporation for selection and appointment of dealers, would debar him for selection as a Retail Outlet Dealer of the Petroleum Products. 4. Respondent no. 3s selection by the Corporation is questioned to have been made without any criteria fixed by the Corporation in this behalf. The selection by the Corporation is stated to have been managed by respondent no. 3, by unfair means. The selection is additionally questioned as arbitrary. 5. Contesting the petitioners case, the Corporation and respondent no. 3 have submitted that respondent no. 3 was eligible to seek consideration for selection, in that, he did not have any retail outlet in his name or in the name of any member of his family, in terms of the Eligibility Clause, at the time he had sought consideration for selection. 6. 3 have submitted that respondent no. 3 was eligible to seek consideration for selection, in that, he did not have any retail outlet in his name or in the name of any member of his family, in terms of the Eligibility Clause, at the time he had sought consideration for selection. 6. Supporting the process employed for the selection of candidates for the grant of Retail Outlet Dealership, the Corporation says that the selection committee constituted by it had followed the laid down norms and conditions, requisite for making selection and that the selection committee, constituted of three members, had taken their independent decision, on the basis whereof, respondent no. 3 had been found better in merit. Comparative statement of the performance of the candidates who had appeared in the interview for selection, too, has been placed on the records along with the breakup of the merit of candidates evaluated by the members of the selection committee. 7. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and gone through the eligibility conditions prescribed in the notice for appointment of Retail Outlet Dealership published in Daily Excelsiors issue of December 6, 2003. 8. Learned counsel for the parties have placed reliance on Clause (e) of the notice to support their respective submissions regarding the eligibility or otherwise of respondent no. 3 to seek consideration for selection as Retail Outlet Dealer. This Clause, for facility of reference, is reproduced hereunder:- "e. Multiple Dealership Norm (relationship clause): Persons desirous of applying should not be having either letter of intend(LOI) or Dealership/Distributorship of MS/HSD/SKO-LDO/LPG of any Oil Company in his/her own name of his/her family members. Family members, for this purpose, would comprise of i) Spouse ii) unmarried Son(s) / unmarried daughter (s)". 9. Perusal of the above quoted clause of the notice reveals that a person desirous of seeking consideration for appointment as Retail Outlet Dealer of the Petroleum Products should not have any letter of intent of Dealership/Distributorship of the Petroleum Products of any Oil Company either in his/her name or in the name of his/her family members. Family members contemplated by the Clause are those specified as such in the clause, i.e., (i) Spouse (ii) unmarried Son(s)/Unmarried Daughter (s), And none else. 10. Family members contemplated by the Clause are those specified as such in the clause, i.e., (i) Spouse (ii) unmarried Son(s)/Unmarried Daughter (s), And none else. 10. In terms of the aforementioned Clause, it becomes explicit that married son (s)/married daughter (s) have not been included in the definition of the family of a person having either letter of intent or dealership/distributor ship of the Petroleum Products of any Oil Company. 11. Learned counsel for the parties have not disputed that respondent no. 3 was married when he had sought consideration for selection as Retail Outlet Dealer for Mand (Udhampur). 12. Clause (e) of the Notice pressed in service by the petitioners counsel, may not be applicable to the respondent nos. 3s case, rendering him ineligible to seek consideration for selection as Retail Outlet Dealer of the Corporation, even if, one were to accept his case that respondent no. 3 was the real Retail Outlet Dealer of Corporations outlet run under the name of style of M/s Vasdev and Sons. 13. Petitioners next plea that respondent no. 3 de-facto dealer of Corporations outlet at Udhampur run under the name and style of M/s Vasdev and Sons, is found to be unsustainable, in that, in view of the documents placed on the records by petitioner indicating M/s Vasdev and Sons, to be a Partnership concern of Smt. Bimla Devi and her another son Rattan Kumar Sharma, it cannot be said, by any stretch of reasoning that respondent no. 3 was the dealer of M/s Vasdev and Sons, as asserted by the petitioner. 14. Petitioners learned counsels submission that respondent no. 3 was ineligible to seek consideration for selection and appointment as Retail Outlet Dealer is, thus, found to be without merit. 15. Petitioners next plea that the selection of the respondent no. 3 was invalid as the Corporation had not adopted any criteria for holding selection, too, is found without merit, in that, evaluation of the candidates made by the selection committee does not indicate any arbitrariness in the selection. The Selection Committee has assessed the merit of each candidate, who had appeared in the interview, in accordance with the laid down parameters and guidelines. The Committee has, while evaluating the merit of each candidate, afforded them requisite rating on the basis of the parameters prescribed for the purpose. 16. The Selection Committee has assessed the merit of each candidate, who had appeared in the interview, in accordance with the laid down parameters and guidelines. The Committee has, while evaluating the merit of each candidate, afforded them requisite rating on the basis of the parameters prescribed for the purpose. 16. Respondent no.3s selection by the Selection Committee on basis of his better merit cannot, thus be faulted. 17. For all what has been said above, the petitioners submission that respondent no. 3 was ineligible to seek consideration for selection and appointment as Retail Outlet Dealer is, thus, without merit. 18. Petitioners other plea that respondent no.3 had managed his selection, too, is found to be baseless, in that nothing has been placed on records, on the basis whereof, the bald and vague plea raised in this behalf may be considered for acceptance. 19. In view of the above discussion, this petition is found to be without merit. It is, accordingly, dismissed.