1 WP 10780.2010 - ( J ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 10780 OF 2010 Sundardas S/o Gajaran Nagwade Age : 36 Years, Occ. Business, R/o : Ruikhel, Tal. Shrigonda, Dist. Ahmednagar. .... PETITIONER VERSUS 1. The union of India Through the Secretary Petroleum Department, New Delhi. 2. The Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. A Government of India Undertaking and Company duly registered under the Indian Companies Act having its registered office at 17-Jamshedji Tata Road, Mumbai – 400 020 and The Regional Office (Retail), G-39, Town Centre, CIDCO, Aurangabad. .... RESPONDENTS 2 WP 10780.2010 - ( J ) Mr. R.R.Mantri,Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. R.P.Phatke, Standing Counsel for Resp. No. 1. Anjali Bajpai Dube, Advocate for respondent no. 2. CORAM : NARESH H. PATIL & S.V. GANGAPURWALA, JJ. JUDGMENT RESERVED ON : 01/03/2011 JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON : 10/03/2011 JUDGMENT : [ PER – S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J. ] 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, taken up for final hearing. 2. Vide the present Writ Petition, the petitioner assails the communication dated 7/10/2010, thereby rejecting his complaint and seeks re-investigation of the complaint. 3. The respondent no. 2 – Company had issued an advertisement, thereby inviting applications for retail outlet dealership. The petitioner, pursuant thereto, had applied for retail outlet dealership at Ghogargaon. The petitioner was placed at Sr. No. 2. The petitioner filed complaint as per Clause 19 of the guide lines for selection of retail outlet dealership. Vide the communication dated 7/10/2010, the same was rejected. 3 WP 10780.2010 - ( J ) 4. Mr. R.R.Mantri, the learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously contends that the marks have not been properly allocated to the petitioner under the head fixed assets. The Technical Evaluation Committee had not taken into consideration the movable assets of the petitioner and capability to generate business and also had not followed procedure nor at the time of interview the petitioner was shown the technical evaluation report. The learned counsel further contends that the petitioner possesses innumerable immovable properties, so also, Fixed deposits and other movable assets. Those were not at all being considered by the Field Inspection Committee nor by the Technical Evaluation Committee. Even the land which is acquired by the petitioner for the purpose of the retail outlet dealership is non agricultural and is meant for petrol pump/diesel pump. The learned counsel further contends that the provision of complaint to the Grievance Redressal Committee is provided by the guide lines as per Clause 19. The Grievance Committee did not pass any speaking order while rejecting the complaint. It has not given any reasons. Even principles of natural justice have been flouted. 5. Per contra, Smt. Anjali Bajpai Dube, the learned counsel for respondent no. 2 – Corporation submits that the petitioner is only impaneled candidate in the selection process and the candidature is evaluated first on the basis of interview which is further subjected to the 4 WP 10780.2010 - ( J ) verification of the candidature in the field verification of grievances as conducted by designated committee. The petitioner has no vested right for allotment of dealership. On this count itself, the petition deserves to be dismissed. 6. The learned counsel further contends that as per Rule 13, availability of the suitable land for setting up of retail outlets at the advertised location is the essence of the project. The evaluation of said land is done by the expert designated committee by considering the location of the land from the point of view of suitability from technical and commercial angle. The learned counsel further contends that the entire documents submitted by the petitioner, were subject to verification by the Field Verification Committee. The petitioner failed to submit Valuation report duly certified by the Govt. approved valuer of his fixed assets and immovable property. As the petitioner failed to submit the same, the marks under that head were not given and the land offered by the candidate was not suitable under the parameters of earth filling, low tension overhead electric line and sale potential. The complaint filed by the petitioner before Grievance Committee was duly investigated by the nominated investigating officer, who submitted the report to the grievance redressal committee. Accordingly, the committee decided the said complaint as not established. According o the learned counsel, no error has been committed and prayed 5 WP 10780.2010 - ( J ) for dismissal of the petition. 7. No doubt, the designated committee, so also, the Field Evaluation Committee and the Dealer Selection Committee are constituted of experts in that field. This Court would not sit as an appellate authority over the decision taken by the said Committees. This Court would only be concerned with the decision making process and not the decision. This Court in its extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India would not be examining the allotment of marks given by the expert committees. At the same time, when a remedy is provided to a candidate, like the petitioner, to approach the Grievance Redressal Committee as contemplated under Clause 19, it is expected that the said committee follows the procedure laid down therein. For ready reference, said clause 19 is reproduced : “19. Grievance/Complaint 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 6 WP 10780.2010 - ( J ) company. No complaints against dealer selection will 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 complainant through registered post asking the complainant to submit details of allegation with a view to prima facie substantiate the allegations along with 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 7 WP 10780.2010 - ( J ) 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 eligible candidates will be re-interviewed based on 8 WP 10780.2010 - ( J ) documents available on records. (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 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 ”. 8. Perusal of the said provision, more particularly, sub clause (b) of Clause 19 makes it abundantly clear that when a decision is taken to investigate the complaint, then the complaint is to be decided by a speaking order after giving due opportunity to the complainant and the copy of the speaking order shall be given to all concern. 9. A “ speaking order ” means an order speaking for itself. To put it in other words, every order must contain reasons in support of it. 9 WP 10780.2010 - ( J ) Reasons are link between the materials on which certain conclusions are based and the actual conclusion. They disclose how the mind is applied to the subject matter for a decision. They should reveal a rational nexus between the facts considered and the conclusions reached. Only in this way can opinions or decisions recorded be shown to be manifestly just and reasonable. The Courts insist upon disclosure of reasons in support of the order on three ( 3 ) grounds : (i) The party aggrieved has an opportunity to demonstrate before the Court that the reasons which persuaded the authority to reject his case were erroneous. (ii) The obligation to record reasons operates as deterrent against the possible arbitrary action. (iii) It gives satisfaction to the party against whom the order is made. 10. The rule requiring recording of reasons must be observed in letter and spirit. Mere pretance of compliance by vague and general words is not enough. Though reasons need not be elaborate and extensive, all the same, they must be clear, explicit and intelligible. Reasons are the life line of any order. The order should reflect the application of mind of the 10 WP 10780.2010 - ( J ) authority while passing the said order and it is the reasons which would depict the same. In the matter on hand, by communication dated 17/10/2010, an extract of the report was reproduced, wherein it was stated that investigating officer found no discrepancy in the award of marks under various head. This does not show the application of mind on the part of authority deciding the complaint. When a complaint has been filed raising various objections, the authority is expected to deal with such objections and give brief reasons while deciding the objections. 11. In the light of the above, the impugned order/communication dated 7/10/2010 is quashed and set aside. The authority before whom the complaint is filed by the petitioner under Clause 19 of the guidelines for selection of retail outlet dealer shall decide the said complaint dealing with the objections raised in the complaint and by passing the speaking order i.e. by giving brief reasons as expeditiously as possible. We have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the matter. 12. Rule is made absolute on above terms, however with no order as to costs. [S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J.] [NARESH H. PATIL,J.] knp/WP 10780.2010