THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 16483 OF 2010 ORDER M/s Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited issued a notification inviting applications for selecting a retail outlet dealer to be established at Shadnagar Road, Ranga Reddy district. The petitioner, 3rd respondent and certain others submitted applications. After processing the applications and conducting the interview, the company placed the 3rd respondent in first place and the petitioner, in second place. The petitioner submitted a representation in terms of the relevant guidelines stating that the assignment of first place to the 3rd respondent is defective for two reasons. The first reason stated by the petitioner was that though the 3rd respondent mentioned that he has fixed deposits worth Rs.20 lakhs and his credit worthiness is certified at Rs.30 lakhs, it is not borne out by records and at the relevant point of time his bank balance was just Rs.164/-. The second reason mentioned by the petitioner was that the sale potential letter submitted by the 3rd respondent from M/s Ganesh Bore wells was not true and correct. The petitioner states that in spite of raising such objections, respondents 1 and 2 did not take any steps and are proceeding with the grant of dealership in favour of the 3rd respondent. On behalf of the respondents 1 and 2 a counter affidavit is filed. It is stated that the petitioner was placed at rank No.2 and 3rd respondent at rank No.1 after processing of the applications and conducting interviews. According to them, the matter was further verified on receipt of representation from the petitioner. As regards fixed deposits and credit worthiness, it is stated that two responsible officials of the company were sent to Bank of Baroda, in which the fixed deposits were made and the particulars furnished by the 3rd respondent were found to be correct. So far as the sale potential letter is concerned, it is stated that the letter issued in favour of the 3rd respondent was signed by the brother of one Mr. Srinivas Reddy and on further verification, Mr. Srinivas Reddy informed the company to drop the further proceedings. Heard Sri P.Krishna Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and O.Manohar Reddy, learned counsel for the respondents. The company has framed its own guidelines for selection of dealers, almost on every aspect, marks are stipulated, and depending upon the marks, which the applicant secures, ranking is assigned. In that process, the 3rd respondent was assigned rank No.1 and petitioner was assigned rank No.2. The guidelines also provide for submission of representation/complaint by the applicants in case they have any grievance. Availing that relief, the petitioner submitted a complaint pointing out two objections as regards the assignment of rank No.1 to the 3rd respondent. Both of them are pointed out in the preceding paragraph. It is not a case where respondents 1 and 2 just sat over the matter. Acting on the complaint submitted by the petitioner, the respondents verified the financial status claimed by the 3rd respondent. It emerged that he had Rs.20 lakhs of fixed deposit with bank of Baroda and the concerned branch has certified his credit worthiness at Rs. 30 lakhs. It is also mentioned that the 3rd respondent’s assets are worth Rs.65 lakhs. Even if the statement of the petitioner that the bank balance of the 3rd respondent at the relevant date is only Rs.164/-, it does not have any impact upon his liquidity. The fixed deposit, which a person holds, will not reflect in the bank balance. The 3rd respondent has produced a sale potential letter from M/s Ganesh Bore wells. The petitioner obtained a letter from Mr. Srinivas Reddy, managing partner of the bore wells to the effect that he did not issue any such letter to the 3rd respondent. This in turn, was enquired into by respondents 1 and 2. The enquiry revealed that the letter issued to the 3rd respondent was signed by the brother of Mr. Srinivas Reddy. They did not stop at that. Correspondence was undertaken with Mr. Srinivas Reddy duly informing that the letter issued to the 3rd respondent was signed by his brother. Upon this Mr. Srinivas Reddy stated that further action be dropped, indirectly mentioning that he intends to withdraw the complaint. Therefore, both the objections raised by the petitioner were found to be untenable. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the 3rd respondent is under obligation to place the particulars of the fixed deposit etc., before this Court. Such a course is not contemplated. The holding of fixed deposit by an individual is a matter purely private to him. It cannot be divulged, unless the situation warrants. Once the company, which is owned by the Government of India states that it is satisfied with the information furnished by the 3rd respondent, this Court cannot undertake a further enquiry in the matter. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________________ JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY Dated: 25.01.2010 Note: Issue C.C. in four days. B/o. tsk