IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.7190 of 2010 PRAVIN KUMAR SINGH S/O KRISHNA KUMAR SINGH R/O VILLAGE-SAWAN VIGRHA PS-DARAUNDA DISTT- SIWAN PREENTLY RSIDING AT MOHALLA- CHANDI DHAM CASTERS TOWN PS & DISTT-DEOGHAR, JhARKHAND---- PETITIONER Versus 1. THE UNION OF INDIA THROUGH THE SECY. MINISTRY OF PETROLEUM & CHEMICAL GOVT. OF INIDA, NEW DELHI 2. THE BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD.THROUGH THE AREA MARKETING MANAGER, 3RD FLOOR, ASHIYANA CHAMBERS EXHIBITION ROAD, PATNA 3. THE AREA MARKETING MANAGER, BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD. 3RD FLOOR ASHIYANA CHAAMBERS EXHIBITION ROAD, PATNA 4. THE DEAL SELECTION BOARD, THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN,O/O AREA MARKETING MANAGER 3RD FLOOR ASHIYANA CHAMBERS EXHIBITION ROAD, PATNA 5. SONAM KUMAR D/O LATE RATENESHWAR SINGH R/O VILL- KASDAURE BANGRA P0 KASDAURE BANGRA PS-MEHERAJGANJ, DISTT- SIWAN 6. SHIMA KUMARI W/O MANOJ KUMAR SINGH R/O VILL+ PO- SIHANTA PS- MAHRAJGANJ, DIST- SIWAN. 7. SHAILEDNRA KUMAR SINGH S/O DINDAYAL SINGH VILL + PO- SIHANTA PS-MAHARAJGANJ, DISTT-SIWAN----RESPONDENTS. ----------- For the Petitioner: Mr. A.K.Choudhary, Advocate For the BPCL 2 t 4: Mr. Sanjay Singh, Advocate with Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Singh,Advocate ------------ 2 5.5.2010 Heard learned counsel for the parties. Petitioner is one of the candidates who does figure in short list category but did not make it to the top. A few marks more in the opinion of the petitioner would have helped him to clinch the dealership in question. According to the petitioner the marks awarded by the selection committee in some of those parameters are low, discriminatory, if not contrary to the advertisement and the brochure laying down the procedure. Soon after the selection the petitioner approached the respondent Corporation raising grievance in this regard. The respondent Corporation has now responded by communication - 2 - dated 21.2.2010. The said communication is annexure-7 to the writ application and is under challenge in the present writ application filed by the petitioner. It is important to quote the operative portion of the said communication for its reference and better appreciation: i. Fixed & movable Assets: Marks obtained ‘0’: Valuation of assets were not from Government Approved Valuer. In this connection please refer our advertisement dated 11/12-7-09. ii. Experience – Marks obtained ‘1’: kindly refer our Brochure Para 1 4(ii) –Experience column, which clarifies in details. iii. Project- Marks obtained ‘0’: we do not find anything in the projected contents except Profit & Loss A/c & Balance Sheet, to be evaluated. Hope the above clarifies your queries. In case any doubts, please make a visit to the undersigned at the address given below for further clarification. This is for your information please.” In view of above stated reason the Company came to an opinion that no wrong was committed in awarding of marks by the selection committee. The communication further indicates that if he needs clarification he can approach the Corporation in this regard but the petitioner chooses to approach this Court in respect of the prayer. Learned counsel representing the Corporation states that the reason assigned in annexure-7 are strictly in consonance with the brochure which forms part and parcel of the notice inviting tender. Petitioner had provided valuation certificate but the said valuation certificate could not be considered because the valuer report had to be duly certified by the Government Approved Valuer in support - 3 - of the assets. There is nothing to indicate that the so called valuer report furnished was duly certified by the Government Approved Valuer. Any valuer found by the petitioner and production of some kind of certification is of no avail more so since it is a subsequent effort and was not produced before the selection committee. What was not before the selection committee the selection committee could not consider. The selection committee cannot be faulted for not granting marks under this head. So far as the experience part is concerned even for experience according to brochure the petitioner was required to furnish supporting document for such a claim. The stand of the Corporation is that instead of oral statement in this regard no experience certificate worth consideration was ever furnished, filed or produced. With regard to the project report, the stand of the Corporation is that except for a profit and loss account and balance sheet nothing was filed by the petitioner as project report. Merely lending the profit and loss account as ‘project report’ does not make it a project report. The two conditions stated in the advertisement have not been complied fully by the petitioner. The Court does not find fault with the reasons given to the petitioner. No interference therefore is required. This writ application has no merit and it is dismissed. RPS (Ajay Kumar Tripathi,J.)