IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC NO.2381 OF 2009 M/S C.L.S.LIMITED M/S HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPN REGISTERED OFFICE S.L.BUILDIG, 20 SALKIA S.ROAD, SALKIA, HOWRAH THROUGH ITS DIRECTOR ANAND MOHAN SINGH, 194/2, GR ROAD, NORTH SALKIA, HOWRAH. VS (1) HPCL, EAST ZONE, 6 CHURCH LAKE, KOLKATTA (2) THE GM EAST ZONE, HPCL, CHURCH LAKE, KOLKATA (3) THE SENIOR REGIONAL MANAER, HPCL, PATNA, L.N.J.P. BHAWAN, DAK BUNGLOW CHOWK, PATNA. ----------- 4 20.08.2009. Heard learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner has filed this writ petition for quashing letter dated 10.12.2008 contained in annexure 7, issued by the Senior Regional Manager, M/S Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited (HPCL), Patna, LPG Region, respondent no. 3, whereby application of the petitioner for LPG distribution ship at Chapra in Siwan was rejected. The petitioner has also filed an Interlocutory application No. 3577 of 2009 for quashing the fresh advertisement for Chapra locality made available on the website of Indian Oil Corporation contained in annexure 1. The petitioner states that an advertisement for allocation of LPG dealership for Chapra location was advertised on 17.10.2007. The petitioner and others applied for the same. The Dealer Selection Board held an interview from 19.3.2008 to 21.3.2008 and prepared a merit list dated - 2 - 21.3.2008 empanelling candidates for HP Gas distributorship. The merit list is contained in annexure 3, in which name of the petitioner figured at serial no.1. As per the advertisement, field verification was still left to be completed. The final selection was to be made from the candidates mentioned in merit list after field verification. It is relevant to state here that multiple dealership norm was not applicable to registered companies or partnership firm till then. In the meantime, one Raj Keshwar Prasad, figured at serial no. 16 in the merit list, filed a writ petition bearing C.W.J.C.No. No. 6310/2008 challenging selection of guidelines of the Government of India, so far it related to multiple dealership norm, which prohibited only the individuals and not a corporate entity from participating in allocation of dealership, if any member of his family had already one from before. This Court found that the norms in question were discriminatory vis-a-vis individual as it allowed benefit to corporate bodies to participate for dealership selection even if they have one or more dealership in hand. The writ petition was disposed of by a single bench of this court with following observations. “In this view of the matter, I think it - 3 - would be an appropriate for the respondent- cooperation to re-valuate the selection process of the dealership in question on the basis of the amended provisions and then re-publish the merit list. This benefit would not arise to any other dealership, in which interviews and merit list have already been prepared.” However, during the pendency of the writ petition the Ministry of Petroleum, Government of India, brought an amendment in the guidelines for selection imposing restriction on Corporate body to participate in allocation of dealership, if it has one from before. Above amendment further stated that this would come into effect from the date of issue of letter dated 18.9.2008. The petitioner preferred LPA No. 975/2008 which was disposed of vide order dated 11.12.2008 observing that the direction given by the learned Single bench of this court would not affect the present case, in which interview and merit lists have been completed. The petitioner is aggrieved by letter dated 10.12.2008, wherein its candidature has not been found to be suitable on field verification on account of some discrepancies found thereunder. The petitioner states that the aforesaid letter has been issued without providing him an opportunity of hearing. - 4 - He further states that no specific reasons have been assigned in the impugned order dated 10.12.2008. Mr Ratnesh Kumar Singh, leaned advocate appearing for the HPCL referred to relevant portions of the guidelines of the HPCL which is required to be followed while making allocations. He further states that the merit list contained in annexure 3 is provisional and subject to other tests like field verification etc. Candidate no.1 in the merit list is first noticed for field verification which is done either in his presence or in presence of his representative. In case the candidate at serial no.1 fails the test of field verification, then candidate no.2 in the merit list is called. If the 2nd candidate also fails in the aforesaid test, then candidate no.3 in the merit list is called. If all the three fails in the test, then a fresh advertisement is issued for the region. He further states that the candidates running at serial nos. 1 and 3 did not succeed in the verification test, whereas candidate at serial no.2 of the merit list did not respond for the test. Thus Corporation was left with no alternative but to re-advertise in terms of amendments which is now in vogue. He states that a SLP has been preferred by one Raj Keshwar Prasad before - 5 - the Apex court. HPCL has entered caveat and stated therein that a decision has been taken to re-advertise the matter for fresh allocation of LPG dealership for Chapra. As the matter is pending before the Hon’ble Apex, this court does not proceed with the matter any further. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of with observation that the parties would be governed by the decision of the Hon’ble Apex court. Shashi (S.P.Singh, J.)