IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP No. 5972 of 2010. Decided on: September 23, 2010. Praveen Kumari ….. Petitioner. Versus Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. & others …… Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. For the petitioner : Mr. Dhruv Shaunak, Advocate. For the Respondent : Mr. Rahul Mahajan, for respondent No. 1. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Justice Kurian Joseph, C.J. (Oral) The writ petition has been filed with the following prayers: “ a) To issue to certiorari or direction in nature thereof, quashing the impugned order of allotment of Petrol Pump dated 14.8.2010 being Annexure P-15 of the writ petition, as unconstitutional and illegal and contrary to the law. (b) To issue a writ of mandamus, appropriate writ, order or direction in nature thereof, directing the respondent No. 1 to allot the retail outlet of Petrol Pump Dealership to the present petitioner.” 2. We find from the guidelines for selection of retail outlet dealers i.e. Annexure P-2 at paragraph 19 that there is a in-house mechanism for redressal of the grievances. The paragraph 19 reads a follows: “ 19. Grievance/Complain redressal system: (a) An aggrieved person may send his/her complaint to the oil company at the address of the customer service cell displayed at the nearest retail outlet of the concerned oil company. Complaints can also be lodged on the website of the oil company. No complaints against dealer selection will 2 be entertained after 30 days from the date of publication of the result of the interview under any circumstances. Pending disposal of complaints, issuance of LOI shall be kept in abeyance. Disposal of complaints shall be as per established complaint redressal system as specified herein below: (i) Anonymous/pseudonymous complaints will not be investigated. (ii) On receipt of a complaint, a letter will be sent by the HPCL to the complaint through Registered Post asking the complainant to submit details of allegation with a view to prima facie substantiate the allegations alongwith supporting documents, if any, within 30 days. The complainant will be clearly advised that the oil company will examine the complaint and if it is established that the complaint does not have any substance, he/she will be liable for legal action. The oil company will examine response of the complainant and if it is found that the complaint does not have specific and verifiable allegations, the same will be filed. (b) When a decision is taken to investigate the complaint, the investigation will be done by one Senior Officer of HPCL and will pass a speaking order after giving due opportunity to the complainant etc. Efforts will be made to ensure that the complaints are disposed of within three months from the date of receipt of response of the complainant. Copy of the speaking order will be given to all concerned. Thereafter, decision on the complaint will be taken as under: (i) Complaints not substantiated: The complaint will be filed and the complainant will be advised accordingly. (ii) Established complaint: Action will be taken as under: a) In case the selection process for a location was found to be not in accordance with the laid down guidelines resulting in wrong selection of first empanelled candidate, the merit panel will be cancelled and all the candidates who have appeared for the original interview only will be called for the re-interview. b) In case the dealer selection was done as per laid down guidelines and complaint against the first empanelled candidate is established, action will be taken to cancel the 3 selection of the first empanelled candidate and issuance of LOI to the next candidate in merit panel. Similar action will be taken in case of established complaint against second empanelled candidate also. c) If complaint is established against all the empanelled candidates, the location will be re-advertised if it is viable.” 3. The petitioner had approached this Court earlier in CWP No. 5819 of 2010. That Writ Petition was filed within 30 days period and that Writ Petition was permitted to be withdrawn by this Court with liberty to file a fresh Writ Petition and hence, the fresh Writ Petition. Thus, the petitioner having pursued his grievance within 30 days before this Court, we feel it only appropriate that the petitioner is relegated to pursue the remedy under the guidelines as extracted above. 4. Therefore, this Writ Petition is disposed of as follows: In the event of the petitioner filing the grievance petition within a period of one week from today, the same shall be treated to have been filed in time. Thereafter, the competent authority under the first respondent shall dispose of the same, with notice to the petitioner and the affected party within the prescribed period of 30 days. As prescribed in the guidelines, proceedings for issuance of letter of intent shall be deferred for the said period of 30 days. We make it clear that the relief as above, is subject to the condition that the petitioner files the petition under the guidelines, referred to above, within a week from today and if not, it shall be treated that the petitioner does not have any grievance. 5. The petitioner will serve a copy of this judgment alongwith a copy of the Writ Petition on the second respondent also. 6. The Writ Petition is disposed of, so also the pending application(s), if any. Copy Dasti. (Justice Kurian Joseph), Chief Justice September 23, 2010. ( Justice Rajiv Sharma), (karan) Judge. 4