't -<j ws i^i¥^?^s3^ ^ .\6' IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDIGATURE OF CHEIATTISGARH ATBILASPUR W.P.NO. 1P,^ QF200t( WRIT PETITIONUNDER ARTICLE2260F THE CONSTITIQNOFmDIA PETITIONER RAMDAS KHUNTE, S/Q.SHRI BUDHRAM KHUNTE, AGED . .>.€^.. ABOUT31YEARS,R/0. ''••"' 17-TT r A/~^T^ TFT T^TTATt T-'J VILLAGE ULKHAR, TAHSIL ,v"».i.'-' y V11^1--AU£', Ul^JSJAAK, ^'''•^•^k^ / SARANGARH, DISTRICT ^0-:^^,'^^' ' / RAIGARH (C.G.) ^:^*^ '^^-•' VERSUS RESPONDENTS 01) ^- %• w-h- BIJ?l!i 04) INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED, ACTINO THROUGH EXECUTTVE DIRECTOR (RETAIL)INDIAN OIL COMPANY BUILDING, ALI ZANG ROAD G-9 BANDRA (EAST) MUMBAI -51 (M.S.). GENERAL MANAGER MADHYAPRADESH D^DIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMTTED, STATE OFFICE, 16 ARERA HELLS, JAIL ROAD, BHDPAL (M.P.). DWISIONALMANAGER INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED, "DsDLAN CffL BHAVAN" RAJFV GANDffl MARG CVIP RQAD) P.0. RAVIGRAM.TELIBANDHA, RAIPUR(C.G.). i 1 . . SENIQRDrVISIQNAL | MANAGER (RETAIL S^LES) IN]])IAN()ILCC)RPQRATION LIMFTED, "INDIAKT QIlL ] ; (j BHA^AN" RAjry GANDHI ; ifl W^WSSSWSiSSilS •®%RgK -2—' 9-: J-- MAR©(VIP ROAD) P.0. RAVIGRAM, TELIBANDHA, RAIPUR(C.G.). :5) DAYARAMAZAD AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS S/O.NOTKNOWN R/0. VILLAGE TUNDRI, TAHSIL BILAIGARH, DI&TRICT RAIPUR(C.G-) WRIT PETmQN UNDER ARTIGLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF U4DIA FOR ISSUANCE OF APPROPRIATE WRIT / WRTTS. ORDER / ORDERS DreECTION/DIRECTIONS ETC. ^a- k-f'^ COURT OFJUDICATURBAT BILASPUR CHHATTISGARH WrltPetition No.181 of 2004 Ranidas Ehunte Versus Indian Oil Corporation SE others POST FOR ORDERS ON 8 JULY. 2005 Sd/- LC.Bhadpo "" Judge '. / ;M Ss^ i^s a '311!||!li's"! Hli s:s A- P-±i iin.! HIOH GQURT OF JUDIOATimE AT BItASPUR^. CHHATTI80ARH Si^: Wrlt Petition No. 181 of 2004 Ranidas Khunte - Versus - Indian Qil Corporation & others Present: -; , ! Mr. K.A. Ansari, Seiiior ftdvocate with; Mr. R.L. Bajpai, Advocate: For the petitioner ^ Mr.Bhishma Kingar, Advocate; Mr. V.R. Tiwari, Advocate: Mr. R.S. Patel, Advocate: For respondent No. 1 to 4 For respondent No^.5. For the latervener. Before Hon'ble Mr. I..C. Bhadoo. J. O R D E R (Passed oa©jyLr_July,2005) ; : • ' 1. By this writ petition under ArtiGles 226 & 227 of the Constitytion of India ^e petitioner Kas cliallenged tto selection of respondent N'Q.5 inade by respoiidents- Corporation based on an interview,which was held 6n 8.1,2004 for the award of dealership of reta.il outletof respondent CorporatiQn to be established at Saran.garli. 2. Brief facts, as set out in tlie petitioil, aeeessaryfQr the disposal of this petifion are that the respondGnts-Iiidia.ii Oil Corporation for estalalishlpg a retail oiu'fclel; at Sararigarfa deeided to award.tlie dealership to a.j su.ita'ble carLdidate and. fpr that ^urpose, in; the &st^^ publishjed an adyertis®men£:in the news^apifer' d 30.3.1999 iiiviting ,; a.ppIica.tiQns fraui " the 1 eltgitole candidates on the t^ni:&^& cOn(iitlotis^Silet-<a'Bt:iin| the::,'s.ai<I advertisem.ent.In pUrsM;aitice{8fxth£,<Satd;'£Edver]tisieineiiiK: •th.e petitloner,resyom8^f^Ko.S^and;so^e':13^ yeBsoin.sf t:^ .: i. appliGd for the allotinent of said dealership. However, the interview could not be held based on that advertiseiiient and again a fresh advertiseinent (Annexure P-12) was isSued which was puMished in theHindidailyDeshbandliudsLted 14,4.2000. Qne of the eligibility condition for award of dealershipwas that the applicant must be a resident of one of these Distriefs i.e. Jashpur, Raigarli, Sargu.ja,Kortoa, Raipur, Janjgir- Champa & Ma.hasamynd. It was also made clear'-that preference will be given to the ^candidate,who is the resident of saine district where the retail outlet is to be established, if other things beingequal. The petitioner's case is that he appeared' before the Interview board on 8.1.2004 and at the time ofi.nterview of one Shri Pawan Kuiaar Agarwal, a busin.essinan of Sarangarh.was present with respondent N6.5 and openly boasted that the dealership 01 Sarangarh retail outlef is going to be awarded to respondent No.5 only, as he has settled the matter with the officials. After iaterview when the petitioner Gam.e to tenow that he has 'been placed at Sr.i No.2, whereas respoa.dent No.5, who is resident ofTehsil Bilaigarh, District Raipur has been placed at Sr. No.. 1. Th.ereafter, the petitiorier applied for'c.opies of necessary documLents but the sa.ine-was not supplied fo hiin tlieii the petitioner sent an applicafion by post on 10. l.2004. He also m.ade com.plaint tltrough a telegrain regarding the partiality and favoritisin in the seleGtion process.- The petitioner's further case is that respondent No.S.lias been able to secure positipn because of undue favour and political influence. TIterefore, it has been prayed tfaat the said selection be quashed and in the first instance, respondents No. 1 to 4 be directed ,to award the dealersliip to the petitiQner or in the altern.ative respondents lie: directed to cancel the interviewj,: selecf list and hold the interview afresh. 3. Reply has beeii filed oh belialf;of^respondeirt Nos 1 fo 4 '~in which has it has been m.entio'iied tllat theselelcfion ojf .^,:^.;1^,,'!: resporident No.5 has beeii ^ad^ Qa the basts Qf infervieTw ^" reffi IIMl;!: w '- '^ 'L. ^ and decision was arrived.' at after considering the candidate's eonduct, caliber, personality, intelleet, business acumen, cultural disposition and knowledge of oil business relating-to petroleuni products, therefore, the said decision canhot be changed. The selection coiB.Biittee selected the most capable candidate, firiding af the commitfee based ou ttie in:terview and the assessment of : candidates during interview cannot be analyzed on cotuparison or by theories al&ne. -Ij; has further been mentiQned that tlie allegations contained in the petition are toaseless, perverse and untenable. Ultim.ately, it has been. prayed that the petition of tbe petitioner; deaerves to be dism.issed. 4. Return on behalf of respondent Wo.5 has also been filed in which it has been ineritioned that he applied for allptnient of dealership of retail outlet 6f re&poadeats- Corporation in respons;e to the adyertisem.ent. Respondent No.5 does not kriow any businessinan or politician who is alleged to have'backing and. supportiia.g him.. As far as Shri Pawan K'asa.SLi Agarwal is coiieerned, he is the - President of Sarangarh Tr-uck Owners' Association and he had grven certificate to respoad®nt N.0.5 to the effect that menibers of ASsoeiation will purchase tlie diesel.' front respondent Ho.5; if the dealership of retai.l outlet is allotted to hini. It has further been meritioned that respondent No,5 belongs to scheduled caste cQmm.unity, comes from a Very poo'r family and in order to establish himself and his family b.e had applied for dealerstrip of retail o'utlet. Tlie petitioner has made false allegations against respondelit No.5 only to harass biia. The petitioner is trying Iiis level best for cancellation of the awa.rd of said dealersliip. It has further been iiientidned fhat respoitdeiit [No.5 was surprised to know that the details, wIliGh hlave been, filed by hiffl. are kaowh •to the petifioner aLndj )th.i.s fact Itself shows tta.at tlte;pefci.tipiier is an laftueiiceA'person.s. Respondent No.5. veliem/eatly denies th&^ ^ unduejavou;r'& politrcat laftuience an<i stat,gd 1:haKtK :^ ^:"^- is.no basi? to support the su'bmission. Ultim.ately, prayed for disiuissal of the petition. of the petitioner. 5. I have heard Mr. K.A. Ansari, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Bhisma Kingar, Counsel for respondent Nos.I to 4, Mr. V.R. Tiwari, coun.sel for respondent No.5 & Mr. R.S. Patel, cotilisel for th.e Iiitervener-GuKaram.Ajgalle. 6. Mr. Ansari, learned Sr. Counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that in view of the allegations made tn Para 5.18 of the petition that one Mr. Pawan Agarwal was present at the tilne of interview and he openly boasted that the dealership of Sarangarh retail outlet is ;oing to be awarded to respondent No.5, the whole seleGfion process is bad. He further argued that this fact find supports from the fact that resppndent No.5 himself admitted in his return thaf said Pawan Agarwal, who is President of Sarangarh .Trucls: Owners' Association, gave a certifieate in his favour on. 4.1.2004 to the effect tliat meinbers of his Association will purchase diesel froui lespond.ent No.5, if dealership is awarded to him. He fyrfher argued that at the interview how the selection board awarded m.0re it.umbersto respondent No.5 iii com.parison to 'the pefitioner is not kaown and the selection has 'been made in an arbitrary inanner. He further urged that since the petifioner is resident of Raigarh District and respondent No,5 is the resident of Eaipur District, therefore, in view of the condition of advertisem.ent that the person residilag in. the same district will get preferential treatnient has not been considered, the petitioner being the resideal of Raigarh district ought to have been given preference iu. comparison to respondent'No.5, who is the resident of Raipur district. Learned 'Sr. Counsel plaGing reliance pn the decisions of the, Hou'ble Apex Court iii theiiHatters of Common Cause, A Reglstered Society 'Vs| 'D'nion of India and others reported iii (1996J 6 Supr^me Court Cases 530 & Shlvsagar Tiwari Vs. Un ioiii pf oth ers j reported in (1^9 6) .6 Sup re;me Court India aad Gases 558 IE7 'y. ": -*,.:^ "s.--- i- a's also the decision of Patna High Court in the matter of Anil Kumar SIngh Vs. Union of India and others reported in AIR 2001 Patna 86 argued that in view of above d'ecisions the selection of respondent No.5 be quashed, 7. Ori tiie other ha.nd, eounsel for respondents-argued t&at the petitioner has aot been able to establish Ihe allegation that said Pawan. Kum.ar Agarwal was able to influence the selection board and selectlori of respo&dent No.5 has been m.ade aierely on the basis of the influence of said Pawan Kuinar Agarwal. They further argued that selecfion board after • interviewiER the candidates, assessifig their relative merifs af the interview and considering their conducf, calitier, personality, intellect, business acunien, cultural disposition and knowledge 6f oil business relating to petroleuni products found tlie respondent No,5 niore nieritorious than the petitiorier aad therefore, the pctitioner is npt entitled, to ehalleage the seleGtion of respondent No.5. They further argued that numbers were ' awarded by three meln'bers of seleetion board on their personal yiewrs and assessinent and it cannot be examined and scrutinized by way of judicial review. They further urged that condition to the effect that preferential treataient sliall be given to the res.ident 6f Raigarh district was subject to condition that if other things are equal then preferential treatment shall be given to the resident of Raigarh distriGt, but in the present case dther things were not equal and therefore, the petitioner was not entitled foi- preferential treatinent. 8. Mr. Patel, cbunsel for the In.terven.er argued that fhe selection was inade in an .:arbitrary iiianner and Inferverier Tffas uiore meritorious than other candidates, therefore,selection be guashed, j i".'.".. .' ••'.. 9. The law on tlie point cega.rding judictal^review.in.tlie niatter'of selection of a ffandiSats^^for' deaiiersB.ip pf oil ^:1' k" ';.:' products was considered fey ttie,H^2t'©owEt'Qf.iOal<;utta ^ ^ in the matter of Chinmoy Sarhar and etc. Vs. Md. Shariiat Hossain and etc. reported in AIR 1990 Calcutta 4t2. In th.at casealso the siinilar poiiit was regarding award of dealership of petroleum products and the Courf held fh.at "High Ccw.rt in Writ Jurisdiction cannot sit in appeal pver the selection of a Dealer for a Retail outlet snade by the Board. However, the exerciSe of such jurisdiction and the judicial reviewability ofsuch selection are subject td the well-known litnttations.flfthe selectioh is vitiated by an arbitrary or irrationdl exercise of po-wer or Vy m.dla fides or is based on no tnaterials or rnade on the basis of irrelevant Tnaterials or by ignoring relevant facts including eligibility, the Writ Court would and should, on proof of the relevant fctcts, grant an appTopriate relief. However. it is not the WrifCo'urt to delye deep into the records of the Board or the Corporation andto examine the validity ofthe riual cloiins upon appreciation afresh ofthe materialspn sv.ch record and. on the bdsis ofsuch r^eappraisal, to decide whether the selectionwas properly Tnade andto give effectto sv.ch decision by the issue ofa t'P'nf. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of K Vtnod Kumar Vs. 8. Palanisamy and" others Tepcirted in , (2003) 10 Supreme Cdurt CasiBS 681 Iield that " u?ifKout raising speciftc plea impttgniTtff the m.anner of tnarKing ahdmala fide exercise of discretion, the Court cannot interfere in the selection made by the aelection coTn.tnittee. In Para 7 of the judgment the Hort'ble Apex' Court has observed, "the dedler selection board rnust scttisfy fhe •requirefnents ofa bona fide administrative .decision arrived at in a fair m.anner. There are no mdla Jldes allegeei agaiiist the Dealer Selection Board or the President or Cinyvmember thereof.\ There is na specific plea raised impugning the manner\of marking. It appearstHat dll the three m.einbers of the Eoard including 'We: I'resifSent. cottdiioteii the prQceed^ngs, and each one aftKent gave rnarKs jexfJressihg his own dssessinent of^t}ie::The;nts of^tiis afi^tice^rs.t.s. 'Fhe ' marks giKen 6g ffae tfaree'were ]t?ie;n tcital.ed;S 3^cfrrahged .^ i Bii' III1 liii: ^r 70 ••^u,' ''<*•'"v^ in the order of nierit. In the absence of a particular procedure or formula having been prescribed for the Board to follow, no fault can be found with the rnanner in which the proceedings were conducted by the Board. The Board is entrusted with the task of finding out the best- suitqble candidate and, so longas the power-is exercised bona fide, the Board is free to devise and adopt its own procedure suhject to satisfying the test of reasonableness and fairness. There is no averm.ent that the proce'dure adopted by the Board was afbitrary. unfair or unreasonable. lO.Therefore, the selection of candidate inade by the selecti.on coininittee based on their expertise, past experience and particularly involved in selection process cannot be challenged in a casual manner.In order to assail selection of respondent No.5, the petitioner was required to raise specific plea and estabiished with aiaterial that exercise of selection was inala fide or selection was arbitrary andirrational exercise ofpower and saine is based on ho niaterial or based on the basis of irrelevant factors or by ignoring the relevant factors including eligibility, unless the petitioner is able to prove and establish the above m.ala fides or irregularities in the selection the Writ Court cannot scrutinize and exaiaine the selection in its own iiiethod exercising the power like appellate court. The nunibers which have been awarded by the selection board are awarded after assessing the. perforniance of the candidate at the interview, his intellect, caliber, conduct, tnanner ofreply bf question, his experience in-fhe field of business and other relevant factors, therefore, the writ court cannot sit on such a decision as appellate court. ll.Based on the above principle, if w,e examine the facts of present case, as far as the arguiilents advariced by learned Sr. Counsel for the petitioner thatthere wasno reason before the selection board togive inore nuiubers to respondent No.5 in coniparison to the petiti^ner is' concerned, same is withbut foi-ce, for .the reasons, a^s. 5- 81 —sElff \^-i- ~\ inentioned above that the selection board was consistini of experts in the fleld and they had a^yarded inarks on the basis of their assessnient at tlie interview to consider the best-suitable candidate and they had devised their procedure how to award the niarlss and counsel for the petitioner was not able to point any__ procedural irregularity coiainitted by the board at the tinie of interview. The petifioaer has not raised any specifie plea in the petitidn that how the inanner of assesaaient & award of number to the candidate at the interview was defective, biased, or coritrary to the settle procedure. l2.Now coining to the second ground raised by learned Sr. Counsel .for the petitioner that the petitioner is a resident of Raigarh district,whereas respondent No.5 is resident of Raipur district, therefore, the petitioner is entifled 'for preferential treatment in view of the advertisement. This argunient has also no substance, for the reasons, the candidate of Raigarh district was entitled for preferential treatnient only when other things were equal. At the interview^ respondent Ko.5 secured 132 marks, whereas the petltioner secured 120 uiarks, therefore, at the interview respondent No.5 was found niore ineritorious than the petitioner, as such the things were not equal and therefore, the petitioner was not entitled for preferential treatment toeing the resident of Raigarh district. 13.Now coming to the third ground raised by learned Sr. Counsel for the petitioner that one Pawan Kumar Agarwal openly boasted outside tfae interview place that dealership of Sarangarh retail outlet of respondent Corporation is going to be allotted to respondent No.5, as he has settled the matter with the officials of respondent Corporation. This fact has been denied by the respondents and there is no specific plea in the petition th.at how said Pawan Kum.ar Agarwal was able to exert the influence on the selection board. It is easy to level such a bald allegatioa tout it is difficult to estalalish thesaine, unless such allegation' is establisln.ed with_ m •>.s g /^ f'" •fsyaf-^ - ^- \ • inaterial and circuuistances saine cannot be considered to be established and without establishing the allegation the court cannot base its finding on such allegation and cannot treat the allegations proved and established. There is nothing on record, %rhich gbes to show that either the petitioner raised this point at the tinie of selection before the selection board or inade such a coinplaint to the higher authorities of the respondents- Corporation. The docuiuents which have been (lled in support of the petition shows that in the first instance, the petitioner sent a letter asking for copy ofrecords but he had not inade any coiaplaint regarding said Pawan Kuinar Agarwal to the higher autborities. Whea such things happened in his presence then hewas required to send the coiaiplaint regarding this fact iniinediately ih wrritina to the higher authorities and also to selection board. Even in the telegram., which was sent by the petitioner to the Executive Director of the respondent Corporation, the only poinf raised by the petitioner was. that he being the resideiit of Raigarh district entitled for preferential treatinent but the sam.e has not been given to hini, there is no inention about the fact which was said to be boasted by said Pawan Kuinar Agarwal. Therefore, the petitioner has not been able to plead, prove and establish the allegation regarding said Pawan Kum.ar Agarxval in the light of above judginent of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the inatter K. Vinod Kuiu.ar [supra] 14.Now com.ing to thejudgnient cited by learned counsel for the petitioner. In the inatter of Coianion Cause (supra) the Hon'ble Apex Court cancelled the award of dealership based on the discretionary quota of the Minister on the ground that the dealership was awarded exercising the discretiouary power to favour the persons related to the politicians, m.em.bers of oil selection board, officials in the siinistry in a cloistered and stereotyped nianner without any guidelines or criteria. Therefore, -. the court held that the.said exercise of discjretionary power was arbitrary, discrim.inatory and aialal fide and V-- quashed the selection. Siinilarly, in the in.atter Shivsagar Tiwari (supra) the Hon'ble Apex Court reached to the conclusion that the Minister of Urban Developnient allotted the shops and stalls to his own eiiiployees and doinestic servants without following any policy or criteria, therefore, tb.e Court held that the allotiuents were arbitrary, aniounts to inisuse ofpower and that is why the ordered for cancellation. Whereas, in the present case no such allegation is there. lif the niatter ofAnil Kuniar Singh (supra) the Patna High Court reached to conclusion that the respondent was not found to be resident of Village where the dealership was to be ;ranted as per the couditions, therefore, held that the s&lection was inade iii violative of the condition in advertisenient and that is why the Court quashed the selection. In the present case there are no such allegations, therefore, all the above three judginents are ofno help to the petitioner. 15,Mr. Patel, counsel for the intervener also not able to point any irregularity or arbitrariness in the process of selection of respondent No.5. No other points was raised by learned Sr. Counsel for the petitioner or intervener, therefore, I ain of the opinion that the writ petition has - no aierit, sam.e is liable to be disiaissed and it is hereby disniissed. Sd/- L.C.Bhadoo ' Judge 1?'" \_y Roshan/-