IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH WRIT PETITION No: 13868 of 2001 BETWEEN: P. Venkata Nagaratnam W/o. K.V. Sudhakar Rao, R/o. Main Road, Vinjamur-524 228, Nellore District. ... PETITIONER AND 1 Dealer Selection Board, Vijayawada-II, Rep. by its Chairman, C/o.Hindustan Petroleum Corpn. Ltd., Tadepalli Installation, Guntur District-522 501. 2 Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., Rep. by its Chairman and Managing Director, G/9, All Yavar Jung Marg, Badra (East), Mumbai-400 051. 3 Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., Rep. by its General Manager, State Office, Himayath Nagar, Hyderabad, A.P., 4 Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., Marketing Division, South Zone, Rep. by Sr. Divisional Manager, Divisional Office, Bharathi Nagar, Vijayawada -520 008. 5 Chudi Madhavi W/o. Dr. Sridhar Rao, Shankara Agraharam, Nellore District. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Aﬃdavit ﬁled herein the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ or order or direction especially in the nature of Writ of Mandamus by calling records, declare the action of the respondent No.1 in awarding the dealership of retail outlet for diesel and petrol to Respondent No.5 arbitrary, illegal and in violation of the conditions/norms prescribed for selection by the Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., as null and void and consequently direct the respondents to award the dealership for Retail Outlet of petrol and deisel to the petitioner under open category for women at Manubole, Nellore District, to the petitioner herein and pass such other order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR. A.V. GOPALA RAO Counsel for the Respondents 1 to 4: MR. THOOM SRINIVAS Counsel for the Respondent No.5: MR. K. MURALIDHAR REDDY The Court made the following: ORDER: Heard both the counsel. 2. Petitioner questions the action of the ﬁrst respondent – Dealer Selection Board, in awarding the dealership of retail outlet for diesel and petrol to the ﬁfth respondent as illegal and arbitrary and contrary to the conditions and norms prescribed for the selection by the Indian Oil Corporation. Petitioner submits that the application of the ﬁfth respondent is incomplete and the income of the family of the ﬁfth respondent exceeds Rs.2,00,000/-, which is a disqualiﬁcation for appointment of dealer. He further submits that he is more meritorious than the ﬁfth respondent, therefore, the selection of the fifth respondent is illegal and arbitrary. 3. Counter has been ﬁled stating that the application of the ﬁfth respondent is not incomplete and it fulfills all the requirements. With regard to income of the ﬁfth respondent, it is stated that husband of the ﬁfth respondent is a private medical practitioner and the income of the family is Rs.73,810/- per annum. The other allegation that the husband of the ﬁfth respondent is an employee of the Indian Oil Corporation is denied stating that he is a private medical practitioner. 4. Except alleging that the application of the ﬁfth respondent is incomplete; the income of the family of the ﬁfth respondent crosses Rs.2,00,000/- and that the husband of the ﬁfth respondent is an employee of the Indian Oil Corporation, no other has been taken by the petitioner. All the aforesaid allegations have been denied and disputed by the ﬁrst respondent stating that the application of the ﬁfth respondent fulﬁlls all the requirements; that the comparative statement of both the applications goes to show that the ﬁfth respondent is academically more qualiﬁed than the petitioner, as the fifth respondent is a postgraduate and the petitioner has only passed S.S.C. Therefore, the outlet, which was earmarked for women, was rightly awarded to the more meritorious fifth respondent. 5. In view of the aforesaid denial of all the allegations of the petitioner, I do not see any illegality in selecting the ﬁfth respondent as dealer to the said retail outlet. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________ V. ESWARAIAH, J August 25, 2008 DSK