In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh CWP No. 4398 of 2008 Date of decision:19.3.2008 Anubha Jain and others ......Petitioners Versus Union of India and others .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.M.KUMAR HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.Salil Sagar, Sr.Advocate with Mr.T.N.Sarup, Advocate for the petitioners. **** JUDGMENT M.M.KUMAR, J. The petitioners have approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution with a prayer for quashing allotment letter dated 28.2.2007 (P-5), issued by the Bharat Petroleum Limited and its officers (respondent Nos. 2 and 3 respectively), in favour of respondent No.4, who belongs to reserved category. The principal basis of challenge is that the retail outlet has been advertised in the newspapers on 25.12.2005 (P-2) by earmarking the same for open category. A further prayer for issuance of directions to respondent Nos. 1 to 3 has also been made for initiating the selection process as per the advertisement dated 25.12.2005 (P-2) and the guidelines for appointment of dealers. CWP No. 4398 of 2008 -2- A perusal of allotment letter dated 28.2.2007 (P-5) making allotment to respondent No.4, Maninder Pal Singh, shows that on 3.9.2004 he was issued a Letter of Intent (for short LOI) in respect of a location at Bathinda City, district Bathinda. It has been noticed that respondent Nos. 1 to 3 have not been able to commission the outlet because suitable land could not be procured at that location. There are number of other allottees like respondent No.4 for whom the land has not been procured. According to the allotment letter, respondent Nos. 1 to 3 have taken a decision to offer some of the existing outlets in the State of Punjab to persons like respondent No.4 and others. There are twenty LOI holders and on the basis of seniority/priority of all the LOI holders, the priority list has been prepared as Annexure I, whereas, the list of outlets has been given in Annexure II. In order of preference, the outlets to those who have been issued LOI on 3.9.2004 are being offered. It is thus evident that the allotment to respondent No.4 has got nothing to do with the advertisement dated 25.12.2005 (P-2) as these allotments were made in 2004. The petitioners are the applicants against an advertisement dated 25.12.2005 and have challenged the allotment by arguing that in the advertisement some of the retail outlets dealership have been offered for open category, but they are being diverted to reserved category. There is no material on record to assume such a fact because it is presumed that when in the year 2004, LOI was/were issued then it must have been against the selection made in accordance with the advertisement then issued. It can CWP No. 4398 of 2008 -3- not be imagined that respondent Nos. 1 to 3 have violated the advertisement on the basis of which LOI has been issued. There is no data provided to conclude that respondent Nos. 1 to 3 have exceeded the quota for reserved categories or the allotment has not been made in accordance with the advertisement issued in the earlier year. Even otherwise, the petitioners have no right merely by making an application for allotment against an advertisement issued on 25.12.2005. Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 are merely making an effort to discharge their obligation incurred in pursuance to the selection made in the year 2004 and LOI issued then. There is no merit in this petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. (M.M.KUMAR) JUDGE (SABINA) March 19, 2008 JUDGE anita