1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR : O R D E R : S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1202/2009. (Namita Jain Vs. Union of India & Others) DATE OF ORDER : March 02, 2009 P R E S E N T HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS ____________________________________ Mr. K.K. Shah for the petitioner. BY THE COURT : In this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for direction to respondent No.2 to allot the retail-outlet dealership to the petitioner in pursuance of her selection in the merit-list at S.No.2 of the selection held in the year 2001. Brief facts of the case are that an application was moved by the petitioner for grant of retail outlet (RO) dealership of the Indian Oil Corporation near Udaipur city at Thitardi in pursuance of the advertisement dated 19.08.2000. The petitioner was called for interview by 2 respondent No.3 vide letter dated 09.03.2001 and interviews were to be conducted on 24.04.2001. Somehow, the date of interview was postponed and interviews were held on 06.06.2001. After interviews were held, one Ms Girija Vyas, Member of Parliament also applied for allotment of retail outlet for the same place. She was also interviewed on the same day; and, after interview, merit list was displayed upon the notice-board of the office of respondent No.3 in the evening wherein Ms Girija Vyas was shown at S.No.1 and name of petitioner was at S.No.2. The petitioner did not agree about the selection of Ms Girija Vyas as she did not fulfill the requirements notified vide advertisement Annex.-1, therefore, a complaint was made by the petitioner to respondent No.3 on 14.06.2001; but, rejecting the complaint filed by the petitioner, allotment of the retail outlet was made in favour of Ms. Girija Vyas. Upon receipt of Annex.-3, rejection of petitioner’s complaint by the Chairman, D.S.B., Jodhpur Shri Milap Chandra Jain, again a detailed complaint was submitted by the petitioner on 20.09.2001 to respondent No.2 and brought out the various grounds of illegalities and incorrect information furnished by Ms Girija Vyas for allotment of retail outlet. The petitioner sent copies of complaint to 3 various authorities including respondent No.3. Upon receiving the complaint by the Dealer Selection Board, it directed the petitioner to submit affidavits and documents within two weeks. Thereafter, vide letter dated 30.11.2001, respondent No.3 informed the petitioner that her subsequent complaint was on the same ground on which earlier complaint was made and was filed after thorough examination. After receiving aforesaid communication dated 30.11.2001, further, upon the complaint made by the petitioner to the Central Bureau of Investigation, investigation was commenced by the CBI. Meanwhile, the matter regarding allotment of retail outlets (ROs) to various persons on extraneous reasons was reported to the Hon’ble Supreme Court and Hon’ble Supreme Court constituted a two-Judges Committee to enquire into the matter of allotment of Petrol/Diesel/LPG dealership/distributorship. The said committee asked the petitioner to assist in the matter and submit material along with affidavits. In the said letter, it was categorically mentioned that the petitioner was at S.No.2 in the matter of RO dealership of IOC at Thitardi (Udaipur). Therefore, the Committee offered an opportunity to the petitioner to appear before it on 22.07.2003. 4 The case of the petitioner is that admittedly the petitioner was at S.No.2 which is evident from letter dated 18.02.2003. The petitioner filed affidavits along with relevant material to the Committee; and, subsequently, the petitioner came to know that on the basis of recommendation of the Committee, the Central Government cancelled the allotment of RO to Ms Girija Vyas, therefore, the petitioner made representation on 27.10.2004 and requested to allot RO dealership on the basis of her merit at S.No.2. As per the petitioner, the matter remained pending for fresh allotment of RO for some time and on 03.02.2007, another representation was made by the petitioner to respondent No.2 to allot RO dealership as she was at S.No.2 in the merit of the panel prepared in pursuance of the earlier advertisement. The case of the petitioner is that Hon’ble Supreme Court has directed the Central Government to cancel the ROs as well as LPG distributorship of quite a large number of persons who were bestowed favour in granting allotment, not on merit but on other extraneous considerations. The petitioner’s case is that her representation is still pending and now ad hoc dealership has been granted to respondent No.4, for which, being at S.No.2, the petitioner was entitled. Meaning thereby, 5 now, after cancellation of allotment made in favour of Ms Girija Vyas, the respondent company was under obligation to grant RO in favour of the petitioner; but, instead of granting RO in her favour, dealership has been allotted in favour of respondent No.4, therefore, the petitioner’s right has been infringed. Hence, the petitioner approached the sales-office of the respondent at Udaipur; but, it was informed that only temporary arrangement has been made and after receiving order from the IOC headquarters she may be allotted RO dealership. The petitioner waited for favourable order; but, shockingly the petitioner came to know that the IOC was extending the ad hoc dealership further by a period of one year with effect from April 2009. Therefore, the petitioner has preferred this writ petition seeking direction to the respondents. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that admittedly the petitioner was at S.No.2 in the interview for selection for allotment of dealership by respondent Indian Oil Company and, after cancellation of RO dealership of Ms Girija Vyas in pursuance of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court by the Central Government, the petitioner has now become entitled for allotment of the dealership. Further, it is argued that cancellation was made on the basis of the complaint made 6 by the petitioner after due inquiry by the Committee appointed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and, after the judgment of the Supreme Court for cancellation of allotment made in favour of Ms Girija Vyas, the petitioner has become entitled for allotment of RO dealership in her favour as per her merit in the selection made in the year 2001 but the respondent company is not granting and not making allotment of RO in favour of the petitioner, therefore, the action is violative of Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution of India. Hence, the company may be directed to issue allotment in favour of the petitioner. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner and, so also, perused the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mukund Swaroop, reported in (2007) 2 SCC 536. Upon perusal of the pleadings of this case and the judgment so delivered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, it is revealed that in para 35 of the judgment, the apex Court considered the allotment made in the State of Rajasthan by the company. Para 35 of the judgment runs as under : “State of Rajasthan 35.In respect of the State of Rajasthan, the Committee considered forty-seven cases and found that ten were in order and remaining thirty-seven allotments were not in consonance with law. Out of them, thirty- three have filed application. We have been 7 taken to the reasoning recorded by the Committee. So far as Smt. Krishna Kanwar, Kundan Sharma, Prem Ratan and Rameshwar Khandelwar are concerned, it appears that they are in the nature of borderline cases and we, therefore, hold that in respect of those four applicants, allotments may continue. The applications by these four are allowed and the cancellation is set aside. Regarding other cases, accepting the reasons recorded in the report by the Committee, we find that no illegality had been committed in cancellation. All those applications are, therefore, rejected.” Upon perusal of the aforesaid adjudication made by the apex Court, I am of the opinion that the matter has been adjudicated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court after thorough consideration of all the facts and, so also, considered the recommendations made by the committee so appointed by the apex Court to enquire into the matter. The apex Court did not pass any order for making allotment in favour of any other person. So also, no finding was either given by the two-Judges’ committee for making allotment of RO dealership in favour of the petitioner being at S.No.2 in the merit. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to issue any direction to the company because the matter has been decided by the apex Court and no express order has been passed for making further allotment after cancellation of allotment so made by the company earlier. Therefore, in 8 view of the fact that the matter was finally decided by the apex Court and Hon’ble apex Court has not passed any order for allotment in favour of any person, then, obviously the relief which is not granted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court cannot be extended by this Court in this writ petition while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The decision made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter has binding force upon all the Courts subordinate thereto, as has been laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Official Liquidator Vs. Dayanand, reported in (2008) 10 SCC 1. In that view of the matter, there is no force in this writ petition. This writ petition is, therefore, accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. (Gopal Krishan Vyas) J. Ojha, a.