Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1783 (MAD)

V. v. Giriraj VS Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.

2014-06-30

M.JAICHANDREN, M.VENUGOPAL

body2014
Judgment : M. Jaichandren, J. 1. Heard the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties concerned. 2. This Writ Appeal has been filed against the order passed by a learned single Judge of this Court, dated 21.2.2014, made in W.P.No.15233 of 2011. 3. The petitioner, in W.P.No.15233 of 2011, is the appellant in the present Writ Appeal. The appellant herein had filed the Writ Petition praying that this Court may be pleased to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus, to call for and quash the proceedings of the 2nd respondent, dated 25.2.2011, and to direct the respondents to award LPG distributorship under the Rajiv Gandhi Gramin LPG Vitrak [RGGLV] for Yelagiri Region, pursuant to the order of selection, made on 29.9.2010. The learned single Judge had dismissed the Writ Petition stating that as per clause [f] of the brochure, an amount of Rs.2 lakhs must have been available in a Fixed Deposit, free from encumbrance, to show the financial status of the applicant. However, the appellant had not fulfilled the said condition for being considered for the awarding of the LPG Distributorship, as prayed for by him. Being aggrieved by the said order passed by the learned single Judge, dated 21.2.2014, the petitioner in the Writ Petition, in W.P.No.15233 of 2011, had preferred the present Writ Appeal before this Court. 4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant had submitted that the appellant had submitted his application, dated 3.5.2010, for the awarding of the distributorship, along with all the necessary documents, to prove his financial capacity, to establish, maintain and operate the LGP outlet concerned. The documents submitted by the appellant include the statement of the bank account, relating to the State Bank of India, Yelagiri, and the Andhra Bank, Avadi. It had been further stated that the 2nd respondent, after verifying the documents submitted by the appellant and after conducting an interview, empanelled the appellant in Serial No.1, as he had secure 100, out of 100 marks. The 3rd respondent in the present Writ Appeal was in Serial No.2 with 86, out of 100 marks. However, the learned single Judge, without considering the merits of the matter, had dismissed the Writ Petition. 5. The 3rd respondent in the present Writ Appeal was in Serial No.2 with 86, out of 100 marks. However, the learned single Judge, without considering the merits of the matter, had dismissed the Writ Petition. 5. The learned counsel had further submitted that the learned single Judge ought to have seen that the 2nd respondent had followed the evaluation criteria, for the awarding of marks, on the financial capacity of the appellant, following which, the appellant had been awarded the maximum of 50 marks. It had been stated that the appellant had been selected for the LPG distributorship at Yelagiri Region, in the draw held, on 29.9.2010. A confirmation order had also been presented to the appellant thereafter. During the field verification held, on 6.11.2010, the 2nd respondent had verified the genuineness of all the documents submitted by the appellant. Thereafter, it is not open to the 2nd respondent to raise a doubt, with regard to the genuineness of the documents submitted by the appellant, to prove his financial status. Therefore, the learned single Judge ought to have held that the appellant had satisfied all the necessary requirements, relating to the financial status, as per the criteria stipulated in the brochure. It had been further submitted that the learned single Judge ought to have seen that immediately on coming to know that the candidature of the appellant was not being processed further, the appellant had submitted a representation, along with a copy of the Pass Book, relating to the Savings Bank Account of his wife in Vellakottai Primary Cooperative Bank. Further, the learned single Judge ought to have noted that on 10.3.2011, the appellant had submitted the bank account statement of the Savings Bank Account of his wife in Dhanalakshmi Bank Bank, Vellore Branch. The learned single Judge had failed to note that the 2nd respondent had awarded distributorship in favour of the 3rd respondent, rejecting the application of the appellant, without considering the documents furnished by the appellant, along with the application and the additional documents submitted by him, thereafter. The learned single Judge ought to have noted that the impugned order of the 2nd respondent does not give proper reasons for the rejection of the application of the appellant. The learned single Judge ought to have noted that the 2nd respondent had not followed the principles of natural justice before passing the impugned order, dated 25.2.2011. The learned single Judge ought to have noted that the impugned order of the 2nd respondent does not give proper reasons for the rejection of the application of the appellant. The learned single Judge ought to have noted that the 2nd respondent had not followed the principles of natural justice before passing the impugned order, dated 25.2.2011. He had further submitted that in such circumstances, this Court may be pleased to set aside the order of the learned single Judge, dated 21.2.2014, made in W.P.No.15233 of 2011 and to direct respondents 1 and 2 to award LPG distributorship for Yelagiri Region, to the petitioner, as prayed for by him. 6. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents 1 and 2 had submitted that the contentions raised on behalf of the appellant cannot be countenanced. The appellant had not fulfilled the requirements specified in clause [f] of the brochure. The appellant did not possess a minimum total amount of Rs.2 lakhs, either in his Savings Bank Account, or in the Savings Bank Account of his family members. Therefore, the marks awarded to the appellant, relating to his financial status, had been wrongly awarded. The learned counsel further submitted that the candidates, who had submitted their applications for the awarding of the LPG distributorship would be evaluated, based on the information given by them in their applications. The appellant had stated in column No.10.2 of his application that he had an amount of Rs.4,81,467/-and an amount of Rs.50,000/-in State Bank of India, Athanavur Branch. The said amount had been shown by the appellant under the head 'amount in Savings Bank Account'. Based on the said information furnished by the appellant, marks had been awarded for his financial status. Thereafter, draw of selection of candidates was held, on 29.9.2010, in which the appellant had been selected. However, after the selection, a field verification was done by the Field Verification Committee, as per the Selection Guidelines. The Selection Guidelines stipulated that the applicant should have a minimum sum of Rs.2 lakhs in the Savings Bank Account, as on the date of the application, or in a Fixed Deposit, as on the date of the advertisement. However, it had been found that the appellant had not fulfilled the said condition. The Selection Guidelines stipulated that the applicant should have a minimum sum of Rs.2 lakhs in the Savings Bank Account, as on the date of the application, or in a Fixed Deposit, as on the date of the advertisement. However, it had been found that the appellant had not fulfilled the said condition. Therefore, the application of the appellant had not been considered, and the 3rd respondent, who was in Serial No.2 had been selected and he had been awarded the distributorship for Yelagiri Region. In such circumstances, the learned single Judge had rightly rejected the claims made by the appellant, by order dated 21.2.2014, in W.P.No.15233 of 2011. 7. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties concerned, and on a perusal of the records available, we are of the considered view that the present Writ Appeal, filed by the appellant, challenging the order of the learned single Judge, dated 21.2.2014, made in W.P.No.15233 of 2011, is devoid of merits. Certain conditions had been prescribed for the awarding of marks to the applicants, who had submitted their applications, for the awarding of the LPG distributorship for Yelagiri Region, under the Rajiv Gandhi Gramin LPG Vitrak [RGGLV]. It is an admitted fact that the appellant did not fulfill the requirements that a minimum sum of Rs.2 lakhs should be in the Savings Bank Account, as on the date of the application, or in a Fixed Deposit, as on the date of the advertisement, as per the Selection Guidelines. It is also noted that the appellant had been awarded marks for his financial status, based on the information furnished by him, in his application, in column No.10.2, under the head 'amount in the Savings Bank Account'. The appellant had declared that an amount of Rs.4,81,467/- was available in his Andhra Bank account and he had also declared that a sum of Rs.50,000/- was available in State Bank of India, Athanavur Branch. Based on these information furnished by the appellant, the marks had been awarded, and thereafter, he had been selected in the draw of selection of candidates held on 29.9.2010. Based on these information furnished by the appellant, the marks had been awarded, and thereafter, he had been selected in the draw of selection of candidates held on 29.9.2010. However, during the Field Verification done by the Field Verification Committee, as per the Selection Guidelines, it had been found that the applicant and his family members did not possess the minimum sum of Rs.2 lakhs in their Savings Bank Account, as on the date of the application, or in the Fixed Deposit, as on the date of the advertisement. 8. It is also noted that certain documents had been furnished by the appellant at a later point of time, to prove his financial status. However, the said document had not been considered by the respondent Corporation, as the appellant ought to have shown sufficient proof that he had fulfilled the minimum requirements prescribed in the brochure and in the Selection Guidelines. Since the appellant had failed to show sufficient proof that he had maintained a minimum sum of Rs.2 lakhs, in his Savings Bank Account, or in the Savings Bank Account of his family members, as on the date of the application, or in the Fixed Deposit, as on the date of advertisement, the claim of the appellant cannot be sustained. In such circumstances, we do not find any cause or reason to interfere with the order passed by the learned single Judge, dated 21.2.2014, in W.P.No.15233 of 2011. Therefore, we find it appropriate to dismiss the present Writ Appeal. Hence, the Writ Appeal stands dismissed. No costs. M.P.No.1 of 2014 is closed.