IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.335 of 2010 Lalmani Singh, son of late Pitamber Singh, resident of Village-Sanhauli, P.S. Sanhauli, District-Khagaria, at present residing at C/O Ramesh Kumar Singh, village Bakhari Tola Mauhari Sakarpura, P.S. Bakhari Bazar, District-Begusarai. -------- Petitioner/Appellant. Versus 1. The Union of India, through Secretary Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas, New Delhi. 2. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited through its Chairman, Bharat Bhawan 426 Currim Bhoy Road, Bellard Estate Mumbai-74. 3. The Chief Divisional Manager, Marketing Division, Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. Divisional Office, Ashiana Chamber, IIIrd Floor Exhibition Road, Patna. 4. The Distributor Selection Committee through its Chairman, Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited, Ashiana Chamber 3rd Floor, Exhibition Road, Patna-800001. 5. The Co-ordinator, L.P.C. Territory, Patna L.P.G Territory and Bottling Plant, Fatuha Industrial Area Mauza- Raipura, P.S. Fatuha, District- Patna. 6. Vivek Krishna, son of Radha Krishna Prasad Sinha, resident of Village Gheghra, P.S. Bakhari, District- Begusarai 7. Manish Kumar Gupta, son of Chanrashekhar Sao, resident of Village Bakhari Gosala Road, P.S. Bakhari, District- Begusarai ------- Respondents/Respondents. ------------- 2. 14.2.2011 Heard Mr. Siya Ram Sahi for the appellant, Mr. Abu Haidar for respondent no.1, and Mr. Madhuresh Prasad for respondent nos. 2 to 5. The appellant has preferred the instant appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent of the High Court of Judicature at Patna against the order dated 13.1.2010, passed in C.W.J.C. No. 17168 of 2009, whereby the prayer of the writ petitioner to quash 2 the final selection list of dealers made by respondent no.4 for L.P.G. distributorship at Bakhari in the district of Begusarai was rejected. Before we consider the plea raised by the appellant and the respondents it would be necessary to notice the facts in some details. The Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited (hereinafter referred to as ‘the B.P.C.L.’) invited applications for L.P.G. distributorship for various area in Bihar including Bakhari on 6.9.2000 vide advertisement in newspaper. The appellant applied for distributorship at Bakhari along with 28 others. Interview was held on 16.1.2001 before the Dealer Selection Board (hereinafter referred to as ‘the D.S.B’) comprising the three members including the Chairman. On the basis of the marks obtained in interview a merit panel of three applicants was prepared. One Radha Krishna Prasad Sinha figured at sl.no.1 and was finally allotted distributorship for Bakhari. The appellant challenged the allotment vide C.W.J.C. No. 9315 of 2001. The learned Single Judge by order dated 24.7.2001 directed the B.P.C.L. to make an enquiry in to the matter. In the meantime some of the news papers 3 carried out news item reporting large scale irregularities in allotment of retail outlets of the L.P.G. distributorship and SKO-LDO dealership. Finally all such matters travelled to Hon’ble Apex Court which constituted a committee comprising Mr. Justice S.C. Agrawal, a retired Judge of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and Mr. Justice P.K. Bahri a retired Judge of Hon’ble High Court Delhi to examine bonafide of about 413 allotments. The Agrawal Committee after thorough scrutiny recommended for cancellation of various allotments having found to be tainted with political considerations and bias. The allotment at Bakhari of Radha Krishna Prasad Sinha was also found to be tainted. The Hon’ble Apex Court vide order dated 12.1.2007 accepted the recommendations of Agrawal Committee and consequently the allotment of dealership in favour of Radha Krishna Prasad Sinha was cancelled. The B.P.C.L. issued a fresh advertisement for selection of retail dealership of L.P.G. and petroleum products at various places including Bakhari. The appellant challenged issuance of fresh advertisement vide C.W.J.C. No. 2259 of 2008. The learned Single Judge vide 4 order dated 4.3.2009 refused to quash the advertisement observing that the old advertisement was of the year 2000 and now a bigger competition would be in play, in view of changed economic scenario. The learned Single Judge further observed that the appellant would be at liberty to participate in the fresh tender and could at best be entitled to some sympathetic consideration, if all other matters remain the same as per law available. The appellant too participated in selection. The B.P.C.L. finally completed its selection and published a merit list on 8.9.2009 for allotment of dealership at Bakhari. In the selection list one Vivek Krishna was at sl.no.1, Manish Kumar Gupta was at sl.no.2, Raj Kumar Jha was at sl.no.3 and appellant’s name figured at sl.no.4 in the merit list. The appellant stated that Vivek Krishna is no one else but son of Radha Krishna Prasad Sinha, whose selection pursuant to 2000 advertisement was found tainted by Agrawal Committee constituted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The Dealer Selection Board (D.S.B.) has once shown its bias in favour of Radha Krishna Prasad Sinha by selecting his son. On the other hand, counsel for the respondents 5 B.P.C.L. submits that the instant appeal is not maintainable for non-joinder of relevant parties. He submits that Raj Kumar Jha who was high up in the merit list in comparison to the appellant, has not been made a party. He further submits that the allotment has already been made to the new licensee and the same has even become functional since August, 2010. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and find that the appellant has not made out any case for interference with the impugned order and the selection process. The earlier allotment made in favour of one Radha Krishna Prasad Sinha pursuant to the advertisement of the year 2000 was cancelled in view of order of Hon’ble Apex Court on the basis of report of Justice Agrawal Committee. The B.P.C.L. invited tender through advertisement in 2007/2008. The appellant challenged the advertisement in C.W.J.C. No. 2259 of 2008 which was dismissed with the liberty to the appellant to participate in the tender. The learned Single Judge vide his order dated 4.3.2009 observed that other things remaining the same, the case of the appellant may be considered sympathetically. As such the order dated 4.3.2009 become 6 final. The appellant did not challenge the order of the learned Single Judge dated 4.3.2009, passed in C.W.J.C. No.2259 of 2008 refusing to quash the fresh advertisement. The appellant rather participated in the selection process and figured at sl.no.4 in the merit list. The appellant now has filed the writ application vide C.W.J.C. No.17168 of 2009 challenging the final list dated 8.9.2009 (Annexure-14 to the writ application) and consequently allotment of L.P.G. distributorship at Bakhari. We are in the agreement with the submissions of counsel for the respondents that the appeal and the writ application suffers for non-rejoinder of necessary party of Raj Kumar Jha, who figured above him in merit list being at sl.no.3 where as the appellant was al sl.no.4. It appears that the appellant raised only one issue before the learned Single Judge that his case was not considered sympathetically. The learned Single Judge held that selection for dealership does not provide for a column for sympathetic consideration. He further observed that if the selection has been carried out strictly in terms of the guidelines and the petitioner has not been able to reach the bench mark, there is no occasion to interfere with the 7 selection based on the observation of the High Court. We are in agreement with the view expressed by the learned Single Judge. We find that the appellant had twice moved this Court against the advertisement as well as selection made by the Bharat Petroleum Corporation. We are of the view that mere observation that case of candidate may be considered sympathetically would not confer any enforceable right, if the selection has been made on the basis of the procedure or guidelines provided in the same. The learned Single Judge had merely observed that the appellant would be entitled for some sympathetic consideration if all matters remaining the same as per the law. We find that the appellant’s name figured at al.no.4 and it is not his case that he had secured same marks as other candidates. Besides this, we find that the new allotment pursuant to the selection list contained in Annexure-14 to fresh settlee has already become functional and operational, since August 2010 which becomes an additional ground for rejection of the prayer of the appellant. In view of the discussions made above, we do not 8 find any merit in this appeal and the same is dismissed. Vinay/ ( S. K. Katriar,J. ) ( S. P. Singh, J.)