WP No. 3430/10 1 IN THE HIGH COURT AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 3430 OF 2010 Smt. Bharati w/o. Pankaj Patil, Age 29 yrs., Occu. HH & attends petrol pump, R/o. New Housing Colony Plot No. 8, Parola, Tq. Parola, Dist. Jalgaon. ....Petitioner. Versus 1. The Union of India Through Ministry of Petroleum, New Delhi. 2. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd., Through its regional office, Aurangabad retail region, plot No. 39, Sector-G, Town centre, CIDCO, Aurangabad. 3. Smt. Sakina w/o. Khazema Shakir, Age 35 yrs., Occu. HH, R/o. Near Railway Gate, Dharangaon, Dist. Jalgaon. 4. Smt. Arati w/o. Raju Patil, c/o. Raju P Patil, Kerosence dealer, Age 30 yrs., Occu. HH, R/o. Paladhi Bk, Tq. Dharangaon, Dist. Jalgaon. 5. The State Bank of India, Branch Dharangaon, Dist. Jalgaon, Through its Branch Manager. ....Respondents. Mr. B. R. Warma, Advocate for petitioner. Mr. Alok Sharma, Assistant Solicitor General for respondent No. 1. Mrs. Anjali Dube, Advocate for respondent No. 2. WP No. 3430/10 2 Mr. B. R. Loya, Advocate for respondent No. 4. Mr. P.B. Paithankar, Advocate for respondent No. 5. CORAM : NARESH H. PATIL & T. V. NALAWADE, JJ. Reserved on : 14th November, 2011. Pronounced on : 21st November, 2011. ORDER : [ PER T. V. NALAWADE, J. ] 1. The petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India to challenge the decision taken and the process followed by respondent No. 2 - Company for grant of Letter Of Intent to run a petrol/diesel outlet of respondent No. 2 - Company. Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 were empanelled by respondent No. 2 in selection process for the purpose of allotment. 2. The petitioner had applied for getting dealership at Dharangaon, District Jalgaon in response to advertisement published in newspaper dated 15.8.2009. The respondent No. 2 has prepared guidelines for preparation of select list empanelment and by following the guidelines, interviews were taken and marks were given under different heads. The petitioner secured 44.5% marks in the process when the minimum qualifying marks are 50% for a woman candidate. Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 secured more than 70% marks and so they were empanelled. WP No. 3430/10 3 3. It is the case of the petitioner that to deny her the dealership, the marks were not given to her under atleast 3 different heads even when she was satisfying the conditions laid down in the guidelines. The petitioner has made some allegations in respect of the record and information supplied by respondent Nos. 3 and 4 to the Company to show that they were satisfying the eligibility conditions. 4. The respondent No. 2 has filed affidavit in reply and additional affidavit is also filed. The contentions made by the petitioner are denied. The preliminary objection is taken by the respondent No. 2 regarding tenability of the petition. It is contended that under the guidelines, there is Dispute Redressal Forum created to deal with such disputes and petitioner ought to have mentioned his grievance before Dispute Redressal Forum. It is contended that the petitioner made allegations against respondent Nos. 3 and 4 before the Forum and the investigation into the allegations is made. It is contended that this alternate remedy is not availed by the petitioner in respect of the contentions made in the petition for getting the dealership and so the petition is not tenable. 5. It is contended by the respondent No. 2 - Company WP No. 3430/10 4 that during investigation made after receiving the complaint, the Company found that correct information was not supplied by the respondents and accordingly their names are removed from the panel. It is further contended that respondent No. 4 has informed that she is not interested in getting the dealership and so there is no empanelled candidate with the company for giving the dealership. It is contended that after making the investigation and after receipt of the report, the Company took a decision to cancel the subject allocation at Dharangaon. As it was submitted that the allocation at different site is proposed, the petitioner applied for the amendment of the proceedings and the amendment came to be allowed. The petitioner has prayed for staying the new process by making amendment. 6. Both the sides are heard. One of the empanelled candidates has filed affidavit in reply. She has denied allegations made by the petitioner. 7. It was submitted for the petitioner that the distance between the new location shown in the fresh advertisement of 2011 and the old location is negligible and so the claim of the petitioner can still be considered and she can be given dealership. WP No. 3430/10 5 8. The allegations made against respondent Nos. 3 and 4 need not be discussed in the proceeding in view of the aforesaid circumstances. It is the case of the petitioner that she had produced necessary record to show that land was available with her for running the petrol pump, but she was given only 94 marks when respondent Nos. 3 and 4 were given more marks for this requirement. It was submitted that record was supplied alongwith the application with regard to experience of the petitioner and with regard to the credit worthiness, but under these two heads, no marks are given to the petitioner. 9. A copy of guidelines prepared by the respondent No. 2 Company is produced on record. Clause 19 shows that when any candidate has such grievance, the candidate is required to approach the Company by filing a complaint within 30 days from the date of publication of result of the interview. In the clause the working of the Complaint Redressal System is described. Admittedly, the petitioner had approached this Forum by filing complaint against respondent Nos. 3 and 4, but the petitioner avoided to raise the grievance in respect of the allegation that intentionally less marks were given under three heads to her in the process. WP No. 3430/10 6 10. The guidelines contain system of assessment and giving of marks under each head which is with regard to the requirements for the dealership. Different criteria are quoted for evaluation of site offered by the candidate. It is the case of the petitioner that she had given consent letter of owner of a land to show that they were ready to sell the required portion of agricultural land to the petitioner. 7/12 extract in respect of agricultural land is produced. It appears that two other respondents had submitted record in respect of land converted to non agricultural purpose. In any case, the Company is expected to evaluate the site as per the guidelines. In respect of second ground, the petitioner has contended that a letter issued by a Manager of Bank was produced with the application to show that the bank was ready to give loan. A copy of such letter is produced to show that bank has shown readiness to give loan to petitioner and her husband jointly. A copy of undated Experience Certificate issued by a petrol pump owner is produced and it is contended that this certificate was also produced alongwith the application. All these contentions are denied by the respondent Company. Thus, there is dispute over the aforesaid facts. 11. The contentions made in the proceeding and the record show that the Grievance Redressal Forum investigated into WP No. 3430/10 7 the allegations made by the petitioner against respondent Nos. 3 and 4 and on the basis of report submitted by Forum, the Company cancelled the names of empanelled candidates. The petitioner did not make aforesaid allegations in respect of her own result, assessment before the Grievance Redressal Forum. As no such complaint was made, the aforesaid forum did not make investigation into the allegations. The allegations involve the facts which are disputed. In view of facts and circumstances, this Court holds that no relief can be granted to the petitioner by invoking extraordinary jurisdiction. 12. The prayer in respect of the new advertisement published by the Company also cannot be granted. Under Clause 19, it is made clear that when there are circumstances as mentioned in the petition, the Company can change the location and also can issue another advertisement. New process is started now. In view of these circumstances, this Court holds that the petition is devoid of merits and so the petition stands rejected. [ T. V. NALAWADE, J.] [ NARESH H. PATIL, J.] ssc/