IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.6541 of 2009 ANITA MITTAL, wife of Pawan Kumar, resident of Mohalla – G N Ganj, Commercial Chowk, Police Station – Laheriasarai, District – Darbhanga (Bihar). Versus 1. THE HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD. through its Chairman, 17 Jamshedji Tata Road, Mumbai-400 020. 2. The Chairman, 17 Jamshedji Tata Road, Mumbai – 400 020. 3. The Divisional General Manager, Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. 10 Industries House, Camak Street, Kolkata-01. 4. The Senior Regional Manager, the Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd / Patna L.P.G. Region, 6th Floor, Loknayak Jai Prakash Bhawan, Dak Bunglow Chowk, Patna-1. 5. Smt. Shipra, wife of not known, address not known through Senior Regional Manager, the Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd / Patna L.P.G. Region, 6th Floor, Loknayak Jai Prakash Bhawan, Dak Bunglow Chowk, Patna -1. ----------- For the petitioner : M/s. Bindhyachal Singh & Satya Prakash. For the H.P.C.L.: Mr. Ravindra Nath Kanth. ------ 04. 20/11/2009 The writ application has been filed on behalf of the petitioner to quash the result or the panel issued on 31.12.2008 by the respondent Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. for selection of a dealer for LPG distributorship for Bahadurpur, in the district of Darbhanga. Selection of Smt. Shipra, respondent No.6, has been challenged on several grounds which have been urged at the bar by the learned counsel representing the petitioner. An advertisement was published in the local newspaper, Hindustan, on 17.10.2007 inviting applications from eligible candidates for award of LPG distributorship. It identified 65 places or location which included Bahadurpur, in the district of Darbhanga, which was reserved for women, in open category. There were many - 2 - applicants including the petitioner and the private respondent. Various parameters and requirements were laid down in that advertisement and guidelines. It laid down the basis on which marks have to be awarded to the eligible candidates by the panel conducting interview. Based on the marks obtained the panel of eligible candidates is notified. The Brochure for selection of candidates for LPG distributorship has been annexed as Annexure-2 to the writ application. Page – 30 of the writ application onwards lays down the parameters under which the various marks have to be awarded to the candidates. In the present case the issue is grant of marks under the category of making a suitable land available for godown as well as show room. All such persons who own or have a clear title or a registered sale deed of the suitable land/shop for show room are to be awarded 10 marks whereas others who have a firm offer having an agreement to purchase the said suitable land for shop and show room are to be awarded 7 marks or a person who can arrange would be awarded 5 marks. Averment of the present petitioner is that she has been awarded less number of marks vis-à-vis selected candidates in the category of availability of land for godown and show room. She had offered land which belongs to her joint family and it stood in the name of her father-in-law. After the death of her father-in-law in the year 1987, the husband of the petitioner inherited the said land along with other family members. The said land which was offered by the petitioner was about 10000 sq. ft. and the requirement was only 150 - 3 - sq. ft. The share of petitioner’s husband therefore, even if it is divided into three parts between three brothers, comes to about 3300 sq. ft. No-objection had been given by the family members of the husband which was annexed with the application and this, according to the petitioner, was a firm offer which entitled her to be awarded 10 marks. If she is awarded 10 marks then she will be the successful candidate. Submission of the learned counsel representing the respondent Corporation is that the brochure for selection of HP Gas Distributorship clearly lays down at page 32 of the writ application that the word ‘own’ means having a clear ownership title of the property or on long leased (minimum 15 years) in the name of family member as defined in eligibility criteria / multiple distributorship norm duly supported by documents. In the multiple distributorship clause, ‘family unit’ in case of married person / applicant shall mean the individual concerned, his/her spouse, their unmarried son(s)/daughter(s). In case of unmarried person, it supposed to include individual with his or her parents coupled with his or her unmarried brother(s) and sister(s). In the present case, since land stood in the name of the father-in-law of the petitioner with no defined share of the husband of the petitioner and the name of the husband of the petitioner not figuring in the revenue records it could not be said in so many words that the petitioner had clear ownership title of the property in the name of the ‘family member’ in terms of the definition. - 4 - The admitted position as per the writ application is that the land stood in the name of late Bhular Mal and there were four legal heirs who were in joint possession and enjoyment of the property and it was in joint possession of the legal heirs with undefined share in the land. If it is so, it cannot be said that the petitioner had a clear right or title existing in her or the family unit, since the land stood in the name of her father-in-law, who has not been included in the eligibility clause of Para 4.4 of the brochure as well as Para 13 A-1 & B-1 of the application under the ‘Note’. Petitioner had to be awarded only 7 marks and not 10 marks. If that is the position then it cannot be said that the petitioner had been given less marks by the selection board when she was entitled to 10 marks. The respondents further explained the reason and the object for having such criteria for awarding marks in relation to land on a rationale basis. In this regard statement has been made in para – 6 to 8 of counter affidavit underlying the object and reason behind it. From a reading of the provisions it is apparent that the petitioner has been awarded marks on the basis of the terms and conditions of the advertisement and the criteria. If the parameters with regard to ownership of the land is clearly stated then it cannot be said that the selection effected by the respondents has been done for extraneous reasons or by giving a goby to the interest of the petitioner. As per the definition of relationship there was no clear right title in favour of either the petitioner or her husband. No doubt the husband had a common interest in the joint family which he - 5 - inherited along with his other brothers and sisters from late Bhular Mal. Petitioner has been awarded 7 marks. The next lower marks or category is 5. 10 marks have been awarded to all such persons who have clear right title and interest in the land. There is no arbitrariness in the selection made in this regard. No direction is required to be issued to the respondents to enhance the marks awarded to the petitioner as well as to re-draw the merit list already notified earlier. The writ application has no merit. It is dismissed. rkp (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J)