IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY NINTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO : 10208 of 2008 Between: Smt.K.Parameswaramma W/o.K.Rama Veera Reddy R/o.H.No.1-216-13-2 Bethamcherla Road, Banganapalle Town and Mandal Kurnool District ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited, 130/1, Sabastian Street, S.D.Road, Next to St.Patric School Post Box No.5, Secunderabad-500003, rep.by its Chief Regional Manager, Retail, Secunderabad 2 Hindustan petroleum Corporation Ltd., 130/1, Sabastian STreet, S.D.Road, Next to St.Patric School, Post Box No.5, Secunderabad,-500003, rep.by Manager DSB Secunderabad 3 The Dealership Selection Committee, For Award of Retail Outlet dealership at Banganapalle, to Bethamcherla Road, Kurnool District, office of the Chief Regional Manager, Retail, M./s.Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd., 130/1,Sabastian street, S.D.Road Next to St.Patric School, Post Box No.5, Secunderabad-03 .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue an appropriate writ order or direction more in the nature of writ of mandamus to issue an appropriate writ order or direction more in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not awarding any marks against 35 marks earmarked for under Land and Infrastructure category and awarding 13 marks only against 25 marks under financially sound category and not awarding retail outlet dealership at Banganapalle to Bethamcherla Road, (Within 2 KM from Banganapalle ) Kurnool District under Open (W) Category in favour of the petitioner pursuant to the Notification published on 21.7.2007 and Corrigendum on 4.8.2007 published in Hindu Daily News paper as illegal, arbitrary, and consequently direct the respondents to award marks under Land and Infrastructure category and award more marks under Financial sound category basing on the document produced by the eptitioner and award retail outlet dealership at Banganapalle to Bethamcherla Road (within 2 KM from Banganapalle) kurnool District. Counsel for the Petitioner : MR. M.SUBBA REDDY Counsel for the Respondents : MR.THOOMSRINIVAS The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.10208 OF 2008 ORDER : The Hindusthan Petroleum Corporation Limited published a notification dated 21.7.2009 inviting applications from eligible candidates for appointment as Retail Outlet Dealers. One of the locations notified was Banaganapalli to Bethamcherla Road (within 2 kms. from Banaganapalli, Kurnool District) under Open Category (Women). In response to the same, the petitioner submitted her application. Pursuant thereto, the Technical Officers of the Corporation had visited the site shown by the petitioner for locating the retail outlet and after scrutiny the officials were very much pleased with the occasion. According to the petitioner, she had also satisfied all other requirements specified in the notification read with the Guidelines for Selection of Retail outlet Dealers furnished by the Corporation in the form of Information Brochure. That apart, the petitioner being the only candidate who had attended the interview before the Selection Committee for the retail outlet in question, the petitioner was under a fond hope that the dealership would be awarded in her favour. However, it was declared by the Corporation that the petitioner was awarded 32.33 marks as against the qualifying marks of 50 and therefore she was not selected. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed seeking a declaration that the action of the respondents in not awarding the dealership of the retail outlet in question under Open Category (women) in favour of the petitioner as arbitrary and illegal. I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the material on record. Clause-12 of the Guidelines formulated for selection of Petrol/Diesel Outlet Dealers of the Hindusthan Petroleum Corporation Limited provides that the availability of suitable land for setting up of retail outlets at the advertised location is the essence of the dealership. It is further provided that whenever it has been indicated in the advertisement that land is also required at the advertised location, the applicants who have suitable site available would be given preference while awarding marks under the Head – Land and Infrastructure – and that the suitability of the land offered by the applicant would be decided by the Corporation. While making it clear that the land owned by the family unit will also be considered as belonging to the applicant, it was stipulated that in such a case the consent letter from the concerned member of family unit shall be produced. The relevant portion of the said Rule runs as under : “The land owned by the “family unit” will also be considered as belonging to the applicant subject to producing the consent letter from the concerned member of “family unit”. In case of married person/applicant the “family unit” consists of self, spouse and unmarried son(s)/unmarried daughter(s) and in case of unmarried person/applicant the “family unit” consists of self, father, mother, unmarried brother(s) and unmarried sister(s).” The petitioner states that so far as the land required for setting up of the retail outlet is concerned, along with her application she had submitted the Sale Deed dated 9.1.1972 pertaining to 28 acres of agricultural land situated in Sy.No.55/5 of Banagnapalli Village. Though the said sale deed stands in the names of her Mother-in-law, her husband and husband’s brother jointly, it was explained to the Selection Committee during the interview that the petitioner’s mother-in-law i.e., one of the purchasers died on 8.9.2000 and thereafter her husband and his brother were the absolute owners and possessors of the said land. It was also demonstrated before the Selection Committee that both her husband and his brother had got 14 acres each out of the 28 acres of land covered by the Sale Deed dated 9.1.1972 and pattadar pass books and title deeds were issued by the Revenue Authorities separately in their names. The Selection Committee was also informed by the petitioner that to the extent of 14 acres of land held by her husband he had given his consent for starting the retail outlet in the said site. Thus, according to the petitioner, she had fully satisfied the parameters of the site evaluation provided under Clause-13 of the Guidelines read with Clause- 12. However, it was found that she was awarded zero marks by the Selection Committee under the Head – ‘Land and Infrastructure’. The petitioner contends that the said action of the Corporation in awarding zero marks under the Head – ‘Land and Infrastructure’ is arbitrary and illegal since the land offered by her was very much suitable for the purpose of running a retail outlet and particularly since the staff of the Corporation, who had visited the land with the help of technical assistance prior to the interview by the Selection Committee, had declared that the said land was within the evaluation parameters for starting the retail outlet. It is also contended that the Selection Committee committed a grave error in awarding only ‘13’ marks against ‘25’ marks earmarked under the Head - ‘Financial Soundness’, ignoring the documents submitted by her which established that she had financial potentiality to run the outlet. Thus, it is contended that the procedure adopted by the Selection Committee in awarding her only 32.33 marks as against the minimum marks of ‘50’ prescribed for open (women) category was highly unreasonable and unjustifiable. It is further stated that though she submitted a compliant as provided under Clause-18(b) of the Guidelines on 29.11.2007 requesting the Corporation to reconsider her case, there was no response. In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the Corporation, it is stated that the petitioner failed to enclose the consent letter from her husband in respect of the land offered by her and his financial holdings. Hence, no marks were awarded to the petitioner by the Selection Committee under the Head –‘Land and Infrastructure’. The petitioner appeared before the Selection Committee on 21.11.2007 and on the same day the interview results were displayed by the Corporation declaring that no candidate was found to be suitable. The procedure followed by the Corporation was strictly in accordance with the Dealer Selection Guidelines. So far as the complaint made by the petitioner under Clause- 18 (b) of the Guidelines is concerned, it is explained in the counter- affidavit that the said compliant was considered by a Committee consisting of three officers of the Corporation viz., the General Manager, and two Senior Officers of the Corporation and they found that the petitioner’s compliant was not substantiated since she failed to enclose the relevant documents and accordingly the complaint was closed. As could be seen from the Guidelines extracted above, whenever the land and infrastructure and finance belonging to the family unit is offered by the applicant, it is mandatory to produce the consent letter from the concerned member of the family unit. In the instant case, the petitioner being a married person and the land offered by her for locating the retail outlet stands in the name of her husband she is bound to produce the consent letter from her husband. However, admittedly the petitioner failed to enclose such consent letter along with her application. May be that the site offered by the petitioner was visited by the officials of the Corporation and was found to be suitable. However, unless the requirement under Clause-12 of the Guidelines is satisfied, it cannot be assumed that the said land offered by the petitioner has been accepted by the Corporation. It is also relevant to note that Clause-9 (g) of the Guidelines made it clear that no addition/deletion/alteration will be permitted in the application form after cut-off date for submission of the applications. Similarly Clause-9(h) provides that no additional documents whatsoever will be accepted or considered after the cut-off date for submission of the applications. Admittedly the petitioner failed to submit the required document i.e., the consent letter from her husband who is the owner of the site offered for locating the retail outlet along with her application before the cut-off date prescribed. Hence, the site shown by her towards the requirement of the land and infrastructure cannot be accepted and the Selection Committee had rightly awarded ‘nil’ marks under the Head – ‘Land and Infrastructure’. It is also relevant to note that as per Clause-16 of the Guidelines the finance owned by the family unit will be considered as belonging to the Applicant subject to his providing a consent letter from the concerned member of the family unit. The petitioner failed to enclose such document. In the circumstances, lesser marks awarded by the Selection Committee under the Head – ‘Financial Soundness’ cannot be held to be unreasonable or unjustifiable. At any rate this Court in exercise of the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India will not sit in Appeal over the decision of the duly Constituted Selection Committee and substitute its opinion unless it is established that the decision making process is vitiated by arbitrariness, unreasonableness, mala fides or extraneous considerations. Absolutely, no case is made out by the petitioner to show that the decision making process of the Corporation is vitiated by any of the said grounds. Hence, the interference by this court is unwarranted and accordingly the Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. _______________ G. ROHINI, J. Dt. 29.06.2009 gbs