JUDGMENT (Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records pertaining to the order passed by 1st respondent in his proceedings in Ref. CHRT PADALAM dated 26.05.2022 and quash the same and to direct the respondents 1 & 2 to cancel the allotment of dealership made in favour of the 4th respondent at Padalam Junction to Vaiyavoor Village, Kancheepuram District and to issue a fresh advertisement for appointment of retail dealership for the location at Padalam Junction to Vaiyavoor Village, Kancheepuram District.) 1. This Writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 26.05.2022 passed by the second respondent, rejecting the petitioner's representation that the fourth respondent is a benami of the third respondent. 2. According to the petitioner, she along with the fourth respondent, participated in the bid called for by the first and second respondents/Oil Corporation, for a petroleum retail outlet. In the draw of lots conducted by the first and second respondents/Oil Corporation, the fourth respondent was selected as a candidate for allotment of petroleum retail outlet by the first and second respondents/Oil Corporation on 04.11.2018. Thereafter, the petitioner filed WP.No.13357 of 2021, seeking for a direction to consider her representation that the fourth respondent is a benami of the third respondent. By order dated 04.10.2021 in WP.No.13357 of 2021, this Court directed the first and second respondents/Oil Corporation, to dispose of the petitioner's representation. The first and second respondents/Oil Corporation have rejected the petitioner's representation under the impugned order dated 26.05.2022. 3. The contentions that have been raised in this Writ Petition was also raised before the first and second respondents/Oil Corporation in the impugned proceedings. Each and every contention of the petitioner has been duly considered under the impugned order. The reasons given by the first and second respondents/Oil Corporation for rejecting the petitioner's representation, are extracted hereunder: “a. Details of transaction dated 19.12.2018 for Rs.2,500/- towards application fee and dated 12.11.2019 for Rs.20,000/- towards initial security deposit as done by Shri Saravanan was sought. It was found that the payment was done through SBI EPAY Payment Gateway. The details of the Debit card holder cannot be verified since as per RBI Guidelines, SBI EPAY do not and cannot share the Payee Bank Details with us. It was found that the payment was done through SBI EPAY Payment Gateway. The details of the Debit card holder cannot be verified since as per RBI Guidelines, SBI EPAY do not and cannot share the Payee Bank Details with us. Again the details are only stored for 6 months which has lapsed long time back and therefore cannot be obtained now. Further the applicable guidelines doesn't bar a candidate from taking external help to carry out online financial transactions at the time of submission of application. It cannot be made out that Shri Sasikumar conspired with said Shri K.Saravanan to grab the dealership with the motive that no candidate from the SC community should be allowed to run a retail outlet at Vaiyavoor village b. As per the selection guidelines it is not mandatory that the e-mail communication should emanate from an e-mail id in the name of the candidate. Once the dealership is commissioned an email id will be provided by BPCL to the dealer and all correspondence and financial dealing will be done with the selected dealer alone c. Even assuming that the lease deed being 4561 of 2018 provides for lesser rental, the same cannot lead to the conclusion that Shri K. Saravnan is benami of Shri Sashikumar. BPCL is not aware of the reason for the low rental agreement between said Shri Saravanan and Shri. Sasikumar. However, after final selection , issuance of Letter of Intent (LOI) and receipt of other statutory permission/approvals and internal legal clearance, fresh lease deed shall be entered into at a later stage. d. The DSG dated 24.11.2018 does not bar the candidate from seeking external assistance, financial or otherwise. Merely because the application and payment for removing electrical pole from the proposed retail outlet premises has been done by landowner cannot concretely show collusion between candidate and landowner for fraudulently obtaining retail outlet. Moreover as per DSG dated 24.11.2018 candidate is required to provide suitable land in lines of said guidelines. The same has been provide by Shri. Saravanan and the same has been verified by BPCL and found suitable for setting up of retail outlet. e. Your have alleged that if the retail outlet is commissioned, then the KYC after the span of a year will show that the retail outlet is not operated by Shri Saravanan but by Shri Sashikumar who belongs to open community. e. Your have alleged that if the retail outlet is commissioned, then the KYC after the span of a year will show that the retail outlet is not operated by Shri Saravanan but by Shri Sashikumar who belongs to open community. The said averment is a mere conjecture and cannot be relied upon for taking action in the present matter. Please note if the selected dealer if found to act as a benami, strict action, including termination, will be taken as per applicable guidelines and law. f. The matter has already been investigated by Shri. HK Kandhasamy, DGM Engg. (Retail). TN&P. The same was informed to you at the time of personal hearing on 23.12.2021. Besides, there is no provision in the DSG dated 24.11.2018 to check if the selected candidate has financial credentials to run the retail outlet. BPCL is bound to adhere to the DSG dated 24.11.2018 to verify the eligibility of Shri K.Saravanan for retail outlet dealership for subject location. g. The selection of Shri K. Saravanan for retail outlet dealership at the subject location has been done strictly in lines of applicable DSG dated 24.11.2018. Unless concrete proof is produced no conclusion can be drawn that Shri. Saravanan is benami of Shri. Sashikumar. h. Please note the draw of lots for selection of candidate is computerised and is software driven. Further draw of lots is conducted in presence of third party as per the selection guidelines. Since no manual draw of lots is conducted there is no question of adding your name at a letter date by pen.” (emphasis supplied) 4. The petitioner has not filed any fresh evidence before this Court to substantiate her claim that the fourth respondent is a benami of the third respondent. 5. Being a reasoned and a speaking order with regard to the contentions of the petitioner, this Court does not find any infirmity in the impugned order, rejecting the petitioner's representation. 6. For the foregoing reasons, in view of the fact that the impugned order is a well reasoned and a speaking order which does not suffer from any arbitrariness or perversity, there is no merit in this Writ Petition. 7. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.