IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.14619 of 2010 Smt. Manorma Devi W/o Shri Nageshwar Pd. Yadav, R/O Mohalla- Naglok Lallu Pokhar, P.S.- Kasim Bazar, Distt.- Munger……………………………………………….Petitioner. Versus 1. M/S Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. through its Chairman and Managing Director, having its Registered Office at 17, Jamshedji, Tata Road, Mumbai-400020 2. The Dy. General Manager (North Central Zone) Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd., Plot No.1, Nehru Enclave, Gomti Nager, Lucknow 3. The Senior Regional Manager (Retain), Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd., 6th Floor, Lok Nayak Jai Prakash Bhawan, Dak Bunglow Road, Patna. 4. Smt. Sarita Sahu, W/o Pappu Sao, R/o Mohalla- Chotti Keshopur, P.S.- Jamshedpur, Distt.- Munger……………..Respondents. For the petitioner : Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha, Advocate. For the HPCL : Mr. R.N. Kanth, Advocate. For respondent no.4 : Ms. Sushmita Mishra, Advocate. ----------- 03/ 28.06.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for respondent nos.1 to 3 as well as learned counsel for private respondent no.4. 2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the settlement of performance (result) dated 24.11.2009 (Annexure-3) notified in connection with the interview for selection of dealer of retail outlet of M/s Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited and also challenging order dated 27.05.2010 (Annexure-8) passed by the Deputy General Manager (North Central Zone), Lucknow (respondent no.2) and communicated by the Senior Regional Manager, Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited, Patna vide his letter dated 03.06.2010 in connection with complaint dated 21.12.2009 and also directing the respondents authorities to - 2 - award marks accordingly on the parameter ‘capacity to provide infrastructure and facility’ and thereafter publish a fresh result of the location in question and for other ancillary reliefs. 3. Admittedly an advertisement was published in the daily newspaper, namely ‘Hindustan’ on 20.06.2009 (Annexure-1) for selection of dealership of retail outlet (petrol pump) for several locations in the State of Bihar including the location in question, namely Telia Talab (between Munger Town and Nauagarhi More) in the district of Munger under open category mentioned at serial no.100 of the said advertisement. 4. It transpires that there were three applicants for the said location including the petitioner and respondent no.4 and all of them were given ‘0’ (zero) marks by the Interview Committee with regard to the location, as according to the authorities, the lands offered by all of them were outside the prescribed location. The petitioner filed an objection before the authorities raising two objections, namely (i) the land of the petitioner was situated within the advertised location and (ii) she was illegally given no marks against the credit worthiness, although the petitioner had been able to show her credit worthiness. The said objection of the petitioner was allowed only to the extent of credit worthiness in which she was given ‘5’ marks vide order dated 27.05.2010 (Annexure-8). But in the same order ‘4’ marks was also given to respondent no.4 under parameter Fixed & Movable Assets. However, the - 3 - objection of the petitioner with respect to the location was rejected which resulted in respondent no.4 getting higher total marks, on the basis of which Letter of Intent was issued to respondent no.4. 5. Now the grievance of the petitioner before this court is that although an advertisement was made for the location Telia Talab (between Munger Town and Nauagarhi More), but the mauza under which it is located is Janki Nagar and petitioner’s land is situated in the same mauza exactly on the opposite side of the road of Telia Talab and hence it also falls within the locality prescribed. Hence she claims that the petitioner should have been given full marks on the parameter of locality also, whereafter she would have obtained higher marks than respondent no.4 and would have become entitled for award of the dealership. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for private respondent no.4 submits that the locality in which the land of respondent no.4 is situated is same as the land in which the plot of petitioner is situated and hence both of them would have obtained similar marks in the parameter of locality, but for the remaining parameter she had higher marks and hence she was entitled for her selection for the said dealership. 7. Learned counsel for M/s Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited and its authorities submits that the lands offered by all the candidates including the petitioner and respondent no.4 were situated outside the advertised location - 4 - of Telia Talab and hence they were intending to cancel the said advertisement and issue fresh advertisement with respect to a proper location, but due to the order of status quo passed by a Bench of this court on 03.09.2010 they were unable to do so. 8. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case as well as from the materials on record, it transpires that the required location as per the advertisement dated 20.06.2009 (Annexure-1) was Telia Talab between Munger Town and Nauagarhi More which admittedly falls within the village of Janki Nagar and forms part of the said mauza. Admittedly the land of the petitioner is situated just opposite the Telia Talab locality across the road. 9. A certificate with regard to land dated 15.06.2010 (Annexure-9) issued by the Circle Officer, Sadar Munger has been produced by the petitioner in which it has been stated that the land of Janki Nagar mauza is situated within Telia Talab. This appears to be absolutely frivolous as the land of any village cannot be situated within any Talab and the admitted case of the parties is that Janki Nagar mauza is a big mauza and Telia Talab locality is a part of that mauza, hence the said certificate cannot be legally relied upon. 10. In the said circumstances and in view of the materials on record and the specific stand of the Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited, it is quite apparent that Telia Talab is a part of Janki Nagar mauza and the land of the - 5 - petitioner and respondent no.4 although located in Janki Nagar mauza is outside the required location of Telia Talab and hence the authorities concerned were quite justified in giving ‘0’ marks to the candidates who had applied for the said dealership. 11. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this writ petition is dismissed, but the authorities of M/s Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited are restrained from entering into any agreement with respondent no.4 in view of the Letter of Intent issued in her name and the said authorities are permitted to cancel the said advertisement with respect to the location in question and publish fresh advertisement with respect thereto. 12. M/s Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited, considering the requirement of people, must expedite the procedure. Harish (S.N. Hussain, J.)