JUDGMENT : Heard Mr. P.K. Roychoudhury, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner. The respondent M/s Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. (BPCL) and their officers are represented by the learned Counsel Mr. P.J. Saikia. The private respondents 5 & 6 have filed their respective counter affidavit(s) but none appears on their behalf, during the hearing. 2. The petitioner offered his candidature for the retail outlet at Karimganj advertised by the BPCL on 2.7.1998 (Annexure-I). After the Dealer Selection Board (DSB) evaluated the applicants, three persons were shortlisted and the petitioner was placed at Sl. No.3 and the respondents 5 & 6 were placed at the 1st and 2nd position respectively, in the Select List (Annexure-III). 3. Being aggrieved by the recommendation of the DSB, the petitioner made representation for reconsideration and since decision was delayed, he filed the WP(C) No.5418/2001, which was disposed of on 4.8.2001 (Annexure-X) with simple direction to the respondents to dispose of the petitioner’s representation, before allotment letter for the dealership is issued to the selected candidate. 4. The primary ground in the petitioner’s representation against selection of the private respondents was that, both the respondents were involved in criminal cases. Under Clause 4 of the advertisement, the candidates convicted of any criminal offence involving moral turpitude/economic offence and those against whom charge has been framed by the Court, were ineligible for the dealership in question. 5. In pursuant to the Court’s direction in the WP(C) No.5418/2001, the competent authority of the BPCL examined the nature of involvement of the private respondents in criminal cases and noted that the 1st assessed candidate Sudhangshu Das (respondent No.5) was not involved with any offence involving moral turpitude/economic offence and therefore it was held that he is not disqualified under Clause 4 of the advertisement. It was further noted that in the G.R. Case No.460/1992, the first summon was served on Sudhangshu Das on 16.6.2001 after he offered his candidature for dealership and therefore the said summon was considered irrelevant. For the G.R. Case No.1241/1992, the competent authority observed that this was a frivolous case for violation of Section 144 Cr.P.C. and Charge was yet to be framed by the Court. Accordingly it was opined that there is no disqualification to the candidature of the respondent No.5 Sudhangshu Das, who was empanelled in the 1st position by the DSB. For the G.R. Case No.1241/1992, the competent authority observed that this was a frivolous case for violation of Section 144 Cr.P.C. and Charge was yet to be framed by the Court. Accordingly it was opined that there is no disqualification to the candidature of the respondent No.5 Sudhangshu Das, who was empanelled in the 1st position by the DSB. Thus the representation of the third placed writ petitioner was rejected, by the order dated 25.2.2002 (Annexure-XII), passing the way for commissioning the outlet at Karimganj. 6. Following the decision of the competent authority, a Letter of Intent (LOI) was issued on 28.2.2003 (Annexure-XIII) in favour of the 5th respondent for the retail outlet at Karimganj. But at that stage, mass allegation cropped up relating to selection of politically affiliated person for dealerships under the Public Sector Oil Companies and eventually direction was issued by the Central Government to cancel allotment of all Petrol Pumps made with recommendation of the DSBs, since 1.1.2000. Hence consequential action was taken by the BPCL to cancel the LOI issued to the respondent No.5. 7. Aggrieved by the cancellation of allotment, the respondent No.5 filed the WP(C) No.5160/2002 to challenge the order dated 14.8.2002 and in this case stay order was passed by the High Court on 18.8.2002. 8. Eventually the Supreme Court disposed of the cases pending before it and in Onkar Lal Bajaj vs. Union of India reported in (2003) 2 SCC 673 , the issue of tainted allotment was considered and the Apex Court indicated that en-bloc cancellation because of anomolous allotment in few cases was not justified, since allegations were levelled only in respect of about 10% of the total selection. Consequential direction was issued for constituting a Committee to examine specific cases of wrongful allotment. Thereafter the WP(C) No.5160/2002 was withdrawn by the 5th respondent as his LOI was intended to be made operational by the Oil Company. 9. At that stage, the present petitioner filed a 2nd case i.e. WP(C) No.7427/2002 for cancellation of the dealership granted to the 5th respondent and this case was disposed of by the High Court on 14.6.2007 (Annexure-XXIII) by directing the respondent authorities to consider the grievances of the writ petitioner and to pass appropriate orders as may be justified, in the facts of the case. 10. 10. Following the High Court direction, the competent authority of the BPCL examined the representation filed by the petitioner and noted that the petitioner never challenged the marks received by him or awarded to the private respondents on the basis of which, the merit of the candidature were assessed. On the criminal cases pertaining to the private respondents, the previous speaking order passed on 25.2.2002 (Annexure-XII) was taken into account to conclude that those factors do not disqualify the private respondents. The issue of political affiliation of the private respondents was then considered and the authority noted that such affiliation doesn’t disqualify any candidate. More importantly, the awarding of marks by the DSB was on merit and not because of political leanings and thus no reason was found for granting the representation filed by the writ petitioner and hence the selection was upheld, through the impugned order dated 13.2.2008 (Annexure-XXIV). 11.1 Assailing the legality of the order passed by the competent authority of the BPCL, Mr. P.K. Roychoudhury, the learned Counsel submits that the respondents are disqualified under Clause 4 as they were involved in criminal cases and accordingly it is argued that undeserving persons were recommended by the DSB for the dealership at Karimganj. 11.2 Referring to the political affiliation of the two private respondents, the learned Counsel argues that this had influenced their selection and on that basis, the order passed by the competent authority on 13.2.2008 (Annexure-XXIV) is contended to be unjustified. 12.1 On the other hand, Mr. P.J. Saikia, the learned Counsel submits that selection was made on merit of the candidates and he refers to two speaking orders passed in pursuant to this Court’s direction to project that even after scrutinizing the selection process, no infirmity was found in the selection of the private respondents. 12.2 Referring to Clause 4 of the advertisement, Mr. Saikia argues that involvement in cases of moral turpitude/economic offence is the only disqualifying factor and when the candidates are not tainted with any case of this category, their candidatures are contended to be valid and eligible. 12.3 The learned Counsel further submits that the respondent No.5 had not received any summon in the G.R. Case No.460/1992 when he offered his candidature. 12.3 The learned Counsel further submits that the respondent No.5 had not received any summon in the G.R. Case No.460/1992 when he offered his candidature. Moreover the G.R. Case No.1241/1992 is a simple case of violation of Section 144 Cr.P.C. where Charge was not framed at the stage when the respondent No.5 offered his candidature. Accordingly it is argued that the candidature of the respondent No.5 was valid and he was selected on merit. 13. The Supreme Court in Mukund Swarup Mishra vs. Union of India reported in (2007) 2 SCC 536 noted the ratio in Onkar Lal Bajaj (supra) and observed that merely because a person is politically connected, should not disentitle him/her from allotment, if the candidate is found meritorious by the DSB and the political connection should not stand in the way of selection of a meritorious candidate. Only when the political connection of an applicant has influenced the selection, the resultant allotment is open to challenge, as extraneous factors have influenced the selection. 14. In the present case, the petitioner has failed to present any material either before the competent authority or in this Court wherefrom it can be inferred that selection was not made on the merit of the candidates. If the political connection of the recommended candidates played no role, in light of the decision in Mukund Swarup Mishra (supra) and Onkar Lal Bajaj (supra), the legality of the exercise undertaken by the DSB can’t be questioned by an unsuccessful candidate. 15. As regards the challenge made to the selection by referring to the criminal cases, the speaking order passed by the competent authority on 25.2.2002 (Annexure-XII) is scrutinized and I find that all relevant factors were taken into account to declare that the recommended candidates are not disqualified under Clause 4 of the advertisement. Appreciating the basis and the logic of the order(s) passed by the authority on 25.2.2002 (Annexure-XII) and on 13.2.2008 (Annexure-XXIV), it is declared that these two orders whereby the selection of the private respondents by the DSB was upheld, do not suffer from any infirmity. 16. The writ petitioner as the unsuccessful candidate has repeatedly challenged the selection process and this is the 3rd writ petition filed by him. The Court is informed that the dealership at Karimganj has already been commissioned and the respondent No.5 is managing the same. 16. The writ petitioner as the unsuccessful candidate has repeatedly challenged the selection process and this is the 3rd writ petition filed by him. The Court is informed that the dealership at Karimganj has already been commissioned and the respondent No.5 is managing the same. When the selection appears to have been made on merit without being influenced by any extraneous factors and finding the decision making process to be in order and accepting the logic and the reasoning of the impugned order passed by the competent authority of BPCL on 13.2.2008 (Annexure-XXIV), this writ petition is found devoid of any merit and the same is accordingly dismissed. But in the facts and circumstances of the case, the parties will bear their respective cost.