IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT APPEAL NO : 51 of 2009 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 21/02/2008 in WP NO : 7148 OF 2001 on the file of the High Court.) Between: Smt. Talluru Vijaya Lakshmi, W/o. Sri M.Ranga Reddy, R/o. MCC 29, Writers Colony, Kothagudem, Khammam Dist. ..... APPELLANT AND 1 Bharat Petroleum Corporation , Rep. by its Area Marketing Manager, 45/A,S.D.Road, Secunderabad. 2 The Dealer Selection Board, Indian Oil Corporation, D.No.5-527/2,Chennupati Complex, Sardar Road, Vijayawada, Krishna Dist. 3 Smt. Sistla Sri Laxmi, W/o. Laxmi Narayana, R/o. 65, Pandu Ranga Puram, Visakhapatnam. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Appellant:MR.M.SURENDER RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.C.S.N.RAJU The Court made the following : JUDGMENT: This writ appeal assails the order dated 21.2.2008 passed in W.P. No. 7148 of 2001 by a learned Single Judge of this Court dismissing the writ petition. The appellant herein filed the above writ petition seeking to declare the appointment of third respondent herein as Petrol & Diesel Retail Outlet Dealer for Kothagudem, Khammam District, as illegal and arbitrary and consequently to set aside the same. Both the appellant and the third respondent applied for the dealership. The case of the appellant and the grounds on which the appointment of the third respondent is challenged is that the appellant is more meritorious, possessing 64 certificates of sports and games, she satisfies income criteria viz., less than Rs.2.00 lakhs per annum for the entire family, she has shown the suitable site for establishment of outlet which the third respondent could not do and that she is a native of Khammam whereas the third respondent is a native of Visakhapatnam. It is case of the Selection Board – 2nd respondent herein that though the appellant has claimed that she possesses 64 sports certificate, she has produced only 17 whereas the third respondent has produced 28, that the pay particulars given by the appellant disclose that she gets more income than the criteria fixed by the Government whereas annual income of the third respondent is only Rs.60,000/-. The learned Single Judge, insofar as the identification of site is concerned, has observed that the third respondent has shown three sites and any of them is available on lease, as their owners have agreed for the lease thereof. In respect of the question of nativity, it is observed that such a question arises when the candidates are equally meritorious, which is not the case with the appellant herein. Therefore, the learned Single Judge observed that since the third respondent is more meritorious than the appellant, the second respondent is right in contending that the identification of the third respondent was rightly made for Dealership. The learned Single Judge having regard to the ratio laid down in Y.Chandraiah Vs. Union of India and others (1999(6) ALD 89) has held that it is a settled preposition of law that the courts would not substitute the view of Selection Committee, who are supposed to be the experts in assessing the relative merit on the basis of the criteria fixed and, as such, dismissed the writ petition. Aggrieved thereby, the present Writ Appeal is filed. Mr. O.Manohar Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the first respondent herein has submitted that Selection Board is not yet constituted as on today. As such, without adverting to merits or otherwise of the contentions raised before this court and recording the submission of the learned Counsel for the first respondent, we direct the first respondent to consider the case of appellant as well as the third respondent basing on the eligibility criteria and report to this Court, without being influenced by the observations made by the learned Single Judge in the order impugned, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. With the above direction, the Writ Appeal is disposed of. No order as to costs. _____________________ Justice T. Meena Kumari ______________________ Justice Vilas V.Afzulpurkar March 26, 2009 Dispatch copy of the order within a week //BO// MAS