CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.6690 OF 2009 :{ 1 }: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: APRIL 04, 2011 The National Wholesale Co-operative Consumers' Store Ltd., Pathankot .....Petitioner VERSUS Indian Oil Corporation Limited, Chandigarh and others ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRESENT: Mr. Vishal Aggarwal, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Ashish Kapoor, Advocate, for respondent No.1. Mr. Raman Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No.2. Mr. Anil Malhotra, Advocate, for respondent No.3. Mr. Brijeshwar Singh, Advocate, for respondent No.4. Mr. R. S. Manhas, Advocate, for respondent No.5. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. The petitioner Cooperative Consumer Store is aggrieved against the order of their rejection for grant of LPG Distribution and has accordingly filed this petition to challenge the said order. The CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.6690 OF 2009 :{ 2 }: primary grievance appears to be against the action of respondent- Oil Corporations in changing the criteria for allotment of LPG Distribution, which is termed as malafide. The petitioner had applied for allotment of LPG Distribution as advertised by Indian Oil Corporation. It is stated that the respondents had laid down a proper criteria for allotment of LPG Distribution and assessment is made by awarding marks against various qualities and the persons obtaining highest marks were entitled to allotment. Besides various other parameters as laid down, some of these are age, educational qualification, personality etc. As per the petitioner, the Government Organisations/ Corporations/ undertakings or private limited Companies/Corporate Societies etc. were required to be awarded full marks under such categories. The interviews were accordingly conducted and marks were awarded. A letter has been placed on record where assessment on this basis was made in District Gurdaspur. While the petitioner was awaiting for interview call, he came across a notice in newspaper making amendment in the appointment of LPG Distributors. Copy of the same has been annexed with the petition as Annexure P-5. The amended terms and conditions changed the criteria for awarding marks, which is stated to be malafide and done with an attempt to favour some persons in particular. The petitioner accordingly pleads that the respondents could not have changed the criteria for awarding marks after having already started the process of appointment of LPG Distributors, especially so, when the earlier allotment had been made as per the un-amended criteria. Grievance CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.6690 OF 2009 :{ 3 }: further is that the criteria for awarding marks has been changed in a manner, leaving ample scope with the respondents to award marks as per their discretion, which would lead to colourable exercise of powers. The changed criteria has also been termed as totally vague as the age of the Organisation, experience, business ability is not open to be determined and assessed by awarding marks. The petitioner accordingly filed the present writ petition, making allegation that respondent No.5 has been favoured and the petitioner discriminated while making assessment. Separate replies have been filed by all the respondent- Corporations like IOC, Bharat Petroleum and Hindustan Petroleum etc. It is pointed out that the respondents are the Public Sectors Oil Marketing Companies under the direct administrative control of Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas, Government of India. The Central Government is majority owner of the respondent- Corporations. It is stated that the respondents are engaged in refilling, marketing and distribution of petroleum products, which are essential commodities and are listed at Item 53 of List 1, Schedule VII of the Constitution of India. The respondent-Corporations have been set up to sub-serve the common goods under Article 39 (b) of the Directive Principles of the State policy and is striving to achieve the objective enshrined in this regard. It is further pointed out that the respondent-Corporations are bound by the instructions and guidelines issued from time to time by the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas. In this background, it is submitted that an advertisement was issued on 1.12.2007 and the parameters relating to multi- CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.6690 OF 2009 :{ 4 }: distributorship norms of age and educational qualification were not applicable for registered cooperative societies, corporations owned or controlled by the Centre/State Government, Central/State Public Sectors Companies or any other Company incorporated under the Companies Act. In order to set-right this anomaly in the selection criteria, Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas, in consultation with the Public Sector Oil Marketing Companies, decided to introduce certain amendments in the guidelines for selection of dealers/distribution of petroleum products for the purpose of evaluation of non-individual candidates. A copy of the letter dated 15.9.2008 is annexed with the reply as Annexure R3/1. Accordingly, the Companies issued a public notice on 18.2.2009, amending the criteria regarding appointment of LPG Distribution. Reference is made to earlier advertisement, where the respondents had reserved right to amend the said advertisement and accordingly it is stated that the respondents are well within their rights to amend the advertisement and consider the allotment as per the guidelines now introduced. Reference is also made to a decision of High Court of Uttar Pradesh, vide which the writ petition was dismissed, where challenge was made to the change of criteria, as is the challenge in the present writ petition. Counsel for the petitioner has made reference to the mode of selection as given in Annexure P-1. Reference is made to the norms for evaluating the candidates, where 15 marks for educational qualification and 4 marks for age and 2 marks for personality are provided. In this regard, reference is made to that CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.6690 OF 2009 :{ 5 }: portion of the advertisement, where it is provided that age, educational qualification and personality shall not be applicable in case of the Government Organisation/Corporations/undertakings; Public Limited Companies/Corporate Societies and Companies and full marks shall be awarded. As per the changed criteria, it has now been provided that the age for non-individual candidates will be taken as number of completed years from the date of registration/incorporation of the non-individual entity, till the date of advertisement. The marks on the parameters of age have thereafter been provided. In addition, the evaluation in respect of non- individuals candidates have also been amended to say that they shall be entitled to 0 mark for their educational qualification and 15 marks for age, 8 marks for experience and 7 marks for business ability and acumen and no mark for personality. This changed criteria, thus, has been challenged through the present writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner would primarily contend that after having issued the advertisement, criteria could not have been changed. The allegation of malafides in changing the criteria as made is not borne out from any material on record. The reason for which this criteria was changed has clearly been brought out and it is not any individual decision taken by the respondent- Corporations but is on the basis of instructions issued by the Government. As already noticed, the same change was subject matter of challenge before the Lucknow Bench of Allahabad High Court. The submission made before the Court was that the change of policy by the Government of India during the process of selection is CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.6690 OF 2009 :{ 6 }: per-se bad without any authority and infringes the vested rights of the petitioners therein for being considered for award of multiple LPG distributorship/agencies as per the policy, which was existing at the time of issuance of advertisement. The Division Bench of the High Court has held that change of policy by the Government of India, which does not effect any person in whose favour right has accrued is not open to challenge, when merely an advertisement in matter of award of LPG Distributorship/agencies was issued and where the selection had not yet taken place. It is further observed that it would be entirely the discretion of the Government to see how distribution of LPG cylinder is made and in what manner agency should be awarded. Judicial interference in such like matters, saying that the policy is arbitrary, is bereft of any justification. Concededly, the petitioner in the present case has not been interviewed. The petitioner accordingly can not claim any accrued right, which had been taken away. As a matter of policy, the Government of India has introduced a changed criteria and the allegation that it is meant to favour some of the few selected is totally misplaced and without any basis. The petitioner has not been interviewed. The Government of India has now formulated/modified the policy and has made this policy applicable in respect of those agencies, where no steps were taken for selecting the candidates. I do not find any justification for interfering in the exercise of writ jurisdiction in the change of this policy, which now is to be universally apply to all equally. I am in respectful agreement with the reasoning given by the Division Bench of Lucknow Bench of Allahabad High CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.6690 OF 2009 :{ 7 }: Court and find no reason to interfere in exercise of writ jurisdiction. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. April 04,2011 (RANJIT SINGH ) khurmi JUDGE