IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE DR JUSTICE G.YETHIRAJULU WRIT PETITION NO : 7148 of 2001 Between: Smt. Talluru Vijaya Lakshmi, W/o. Sri M.Ranga Reddy, R/o. MCC 29, Writers Colony, Kothagudem, Khammam Dist. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Bharat Petroleum Corporation , Rep.by its Area Marketing Manager, 45/A,S.D.Road, Secunderabad. 2 The Dealer Selection Board, Indian Oil Corporation, D.No.5-527/2,Chennupati Complex, Sardar Road, Vijayawada, Krishna Dist. 3 Sistla Sri Laxmi, W/o. Laxmi Narayana, R/o. 65, Pandu Ranga Puram, Visakhapatnam. .....RESPONDENTS 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 to issue a writ, order or a direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the first and second respondents in appointing the third respondent as Petrol and Diesel retail outlet dealer for Kothagudem, Khammam Dist. as highly illegal, arbitrary,unjust,improper and consequently to setaside the same and pass. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.P.SHIV KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.G.S.R.ANJANEYALU The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking to declare the action of respondents 1 and 2 in appointing the third respondent as Petrol & Diesel Retail Outlet Dealer for Kothagudem, Khammam District as highly illegal, arbitrary and improper and consequently to set aside the same. The petitioner and the third respondent applied for dealership and the third respondent was selected as a Dealer. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed the present writ petition on four grounds, viz., 1) that she is more meritorious than the third respondent by possessing 64 certificates relating to sports and games issued by different organizations at state and national levels; 2) that she satisfied the income criteria, which should be less than Rs.2 lakhs per annum for the entire family; 3) that the third respondent could not show the suitable site for establishment of the outlet, whereas she could do, and 4) that the third respondent is a native of Visakhapatnam, whereas she is a native of Khammam District, in which the petroleum outlet is proposed to be established. The selection board, who is the second respondent, filed a counter mentioning that though the petitioner mentioned in her application that she possesses 64 sports certificates, she produced only 17 certificates, whereas the third respondent produced 28 certificates, therefore, the third respondent is more meritorious than the petitioner. The selection board further mentioned that so far as the income of the petitioner is concerned, the pay particulars given by her disclose that she was getting more income than the criteria fixed by the Government, whereas the annual income of the third respondent is only Rs.60,000/-, therefore, the petitioner failed to fulfill the income criteria as her income was Rs.2,68,519/-. So far as the site for establishment of the outlet is concerned, the petitioner contended that the third respondent failed to identify the site for establishment of the outlet. But, the selection board observed that the third respondent had shown three sites for selection and any of them is available on lease as the owners of the site agreed to give the same on lease. So far as the nativity is concerned, though the third respondent belongs to Visakhapatnam, the nativity question arises when the candidates are equally meritorious and as the third respondent is more meritorious than the petitioner, she was preferred, therefore, the second respondent rightly contended that the selection was made on fulfillment of the criteria fixed for selection of the Dealer and accordingly, the third respondent was identified as a candidate for establishing the petroleum outlet. The learned counsel for the second respondent also drew the attention of this Court to a Judgment of a learned single Judge of this Court in Y. CHANDRAIAH v. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS [1], wherein this Court observed that: “The criteria fixed which has been referred to above is neither challenged nor it appears to be arbitrary. But, the view of the Selection Board in awarding the marks to the candidates cannot be substituted by the views of the Court. The break up on the basis of which the marks are awarded are such as Personality, capability to arrange finance, capability to provide infrastructure and general assessment. Under these heads it is only the Selection Committee which could assess the comparative merit of the candidates before them.” In the light of the above facts and circumstances and in the light of the above observation of this Court, it is the settled preposition of law that the Courts would not substitute the view of Selection Committee, who are supposed to be experts in assessing the relative merit on the basis of the criteria fixed, therefore, I do not find any merits in the writ petition. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. No order as to costs. __________________ DR. G. YETHIRAJULU, J Date:21-02-2008 YCR ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER Copy to: 1. The Area Marketing Manager, Bharat Petroleum Corporation, 45/A,S.D.Road, Secunderabad. 2 The Dealer Selection Board, Indian Oil Corporation, D.No.5-527/2,Chennupati Complex, Sardar Road, Vijayawada, Krishna Dist. 3. 2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{MADHURI} [1] 1999 (6) ALD 89