Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1347 (PAT)

Pramod Kumar v. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd

2012-09-21

S.N.HUSSAIN

body2012
ORDER This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner Pramod Kumar against respondent no.7 Mahadeo Mahto for the following reliefs from the respondents-authorities of the Indian Oil Corporation Limited:- (i) For cancellation of Letter of Intent, after the same being produced by order of the Hon’ble Court by the respondents concerned, issued in favour of respondent no.7 in the name and style of Indane distributor M/s G.B.M. Indane Agency, Benipur, Darbhanga in pursuance of advertisement dated 18.02.2002 published in the daily newspaper Hindustan Hindi Edition on the ground of violation of the norms upon which selection was made. (ii) For direction to the respondents concerned to allot the distributorship of L.P.G. (Indane) to the petitioner at Benipur Block in the district of Darbhanga pursuant to his having been placed at Sl. No.2 of the merit list prepared under advertisement dated 18.02.2002 published in the daily newspaper Hindustan Hindi Edition for the reserved category of Scheduled Caste. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner stated that on 18.02.2002 an advertisement for distributorship of L.P.G. Gas was published by the Indane Oil Corporation Limited (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Corporation’ for the sake of brevity) for Benipur Block within the district of Darbhanga under reserved category of scheduled caste in response to which the petitioner, being scheduled caste, submitted his application form within the time allowed, whereafter interview of the petitioner was held along with other candidates, whereafter merit list was prepared in which the petitioner was at serial no.2, whereas respondent no.7 was at serial no.1 and accordingly Letter of Intent (LOI) dated 08.11.2003 was issued in favour of respondent no.7. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that finally Letter of Intent was issued by the Corporation in favour of respondent no.7 vide letter dated 30.03.2006, but the said Letter of Intent was not legal and proper as respondent no.7 had violated the terms specified by the Corporation and entered into a deed of partnership and executed power of attorney in favour of third person, hence the said Letter of Intent issued by the Corporation should be cancelled and the petitioner being at serial no.2 in the merit list should be granted Letter of Intent for the said place. 4. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Corporation (respondent nos.1 to 6) opposed the contentions of learned counsel for the petitioner and stated that selection process had come to an end in the year 2006 when agreement was executed between the Corporation and respondent no.7, whereafter contractual relationship between the Corporation and respondent no.7 was started and the dispute between the Corporation and respondent no.7 was purely in the realm contract/agreement in which no third person can be involved. 5. Learned counsel for the Corporation (respondent nos.1 to 6) submitted that as a general principle the merit list dries up after one year and after 2002 many things have changed and hence the panel of select list cannot continue and in any view of the matter the select panel got exhausted after contractual relationship between the Corporation and respondent no.7 as it had served its purpose and if respondent no.7 is removed then a fresh advertisement would be required as per the present day requirement specially for avoiding any loss to the Corporation. 6. Learned counsel for respondent no.7 adopted the arguments raised by learned counsel appearing for the Corporation and its authorities as mentioned above. 7. Considering the averments made by learned counsel for the parties and the materials on record, it is quite apparent that in view of advertisement dated 18.02.2002 for the above mentioned distributorship several candidates applied and interview commenced by the authorities, whereafter select list was prepared in which respondent no.7 was at serial no.1 and petitioner was at serial no.2 and accordingly Letter of Intent was issued in favour of respondent no.7 on 08.11.2003. Thereafter on the undertaking of respondent no.7 that he would make arrangement and constructions at his own, a fresh revised Letter of Intent was issued in favour of respondent no.7 on 30.03.2006 by the Corporation, which also issued letter of appointment dated 14.12.2006 commissioning dealership in favour of respondent no.7, who started functioning from December, 2006 itself, whereafter a final agreement was drawn between the Corporation and respondent no.7 on 06.05.2008. 8. 8. From the aforesaid facts and chronology it is quite apparent that selection process had come to an end on 14.12.2006 and by that time the merit list of the selection process dried up and contractual relationship between the Corporation and respondent no.7 started and hence the petitioner or anyone else can have no right or claim in the said matter nor he can be privy to the contractual relationship between the Corporation and respondent no.7. 9. So far the allegations levelled by the petitioner against respondent no.7 is concerned, there may be a partnership agreement and power of attorney by respondent no.7 with third person, but when the said partnership agreement and power of attorney had been cancelled/revoked and none of those alleged partners had come forward claiming to be aggrieved, the matter is finished and the petitioner cannot insist that there is a dispute specially when none of the partners had raised any dispute before any forum. 10. Furthermore, on the basis of the aforesaid complaint raised by some interested persons letter dated 13.01.2011 had been issued by the authority of the Corporation against respondent no.7, who challenged it vide CWJC No.4896 of 2011. The said writ petition has been allowed by this Court vide order dated 21.09.2012 after holding that the acts of the authorities of the Corporation in passing the said order dated 13.01.2011 cannot be held to be sustainable in law and accordingly the said order dated 13.01.2011 passed by the authority of the Corporation was quashed and the said authority was directed to return all the equipments, documents, records etc. to the petitioner and transfer back all the Indane Customers to the petitioner’s distributorship and immediately start supply of L.P.G. cylinders for distribution to the petitioner’s agency and all the aforesaid acts should be completed within 15 days from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. 11. In the said circumstances and in view of the aforesaid order dated 21.09.2012 passed in CWJC No.4896 of 2011 this court does not find any merit in this writ petition, which is accordingly dismissed.