THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Writ Petition No.19795 of 2009 Dated:31st August, 2010 Between: Bapu Reddy Eaga, Veega ….Petitioner and 1. The Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., rep. by its Executive Director, H.No.3- 6-436 to 438,2nd Floor, Naspur House, Himayathnagar, Hyderabad – 29 & Ors. …Respondents **** THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Writ Petition No.19795 of 2009 ORDER: This Writ Petition has been taken out by Bapu Reddy Eaga, Veega, seeking mandamus declaring the action of the respondents 1 to 4 in appointing Alle Archana-5th respondent as LPG Dealer of IOCL at Tadwai, Nizamabad District under open category, as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 2. A notification in ‘EENADU’ on 01.10.2007 came to be issued for appointment of LPG Distributors in various parts of the State of Andhra Pradesh by three oil corporations viz., 1) Indian Oil Corporation Limited, 2) Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited and 3) Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited. In pursuance of the said notification, the petitioner made an application seeking allotment of LPG Dealership of Indian Oil Corporation Limited at Tadwai, Nizamabad District under open category. Ms.Alle Archana-5th respondent also made an application for allotment of LPG Dealership of IOCL at Tadwai, Nizamabad District. The petitioner secured 79.27 marks and whereas, the 5th respondent secured 92.67 marks. According to the petitioner, the marks awarded to the 5th respondent are not in accordance with the dealership guidelines. For better understand of the grievance of the petitioner, I deem it appropriate to refer paras.4 to 6 of the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, which read as follows: “4. It is submitted that the 5th respondent herein has passed B.Tech. and has no independent income of her own. Her father Alle Nagabhushanam was having “white ration card”, whose income was below poverty line i.e, Rs.22,000/- only as per the ration card. Thus, the 5th respondent has no financial capacity. The 5th respondent herein also made false statement with regard to her income apart from creating fabricated income certificate and other documents only for the purpose of applying the dealership showing as her income at Rs.5,00,000/-. On the ground of non-possessing the financial viability to run the LPG distributionship, the 5th respondent’s candidate ought to have been rejected by the respondents at the time of interview. 5. It is submitted that the 5th respondent herein also made a claim that she obtained portion of premises admeasuring 145.88 sq. feet from M.Narayana Reddy on 16.10.2007. The said document is fabricated and false as the said Narayana Reddy already executed the lease deed on 20.10.2007 in favour of another person viz., Prodduturu Venugopal and registered the same in his favour in respect of very same property. Thus, the schedule property shown in the lease deed of 5th respondent was not vacant and available at all. Therefore, the lease deed submitted by the 5th respondent herein is also incorrect and liable to be rejected. 6. It is submitted that the required dimensions of the show room is 3 mts. X 4.5 mts., however, the document filed by the 5th respondent does not fulfill the above said requirements. There is no sufficient space as required and the show room is shortfall of space with regard to the standard requirements prescribed by the respondent company and the same is also not suitable for the show room purpose.” 3. Notice before admission came to be ordered on 16.09.2009. An interim direction has been issued to the respondent 1 to 3 not to enter into ‘letter of agreement’ with the 5th respondent with regard to LPG Distributorship of IOCL on the even date. 4. The respondents entered appearance and filed counter-affidavits. 5th respondent moved vacate stay petition being WVMP No.190 of 2010 with a prayer to vacate the interim order dated 16.09.2009. 5. The counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents 1 and 2, in brief, is: The petitioner submitting application for award of LPG Dealership of IOC at Tadwai, Nizamabad District, is not disputed. The petitioner made a complaint on 08.08.2009 to the Corporation making certain allegations against the 5th respondent. The Corporation appointed Investigating Officer and the Investigating Officer found that the allegations made by the petitioner are not true. The petitioner having made a complaint cannot be permitted to approach this Court invoking the extra-ordinary jurisdiction. The petitioner and the 5th respondent participated in the selection interview. The 5th respondent has been placed at Sl.No.1 and whereas, the petitioner has been placed at Sl.No.2 in the panel. The Corporation issued letter dated 19.08.2009 to the petitioner requesting him to submit more information or material evidence to substantiate the allegations mentioned in the complaint. The selection process involves allotment of marks to the applicants based on particulars furnished in the applications and the subsequent interview. The corporation, after receiving the applications from various applicants, has scrutinized the applications in a transparent manner. Based on the particulars furnished by the applicants, marks were allotted by the scrutinizing committee. In the post interview, 5th respondent secured 92.67 marks and whereas the petitioner secured 79.27 marks. The entire selection was done in a transparent manner and by following due procedure and as per conditions in Clause 19(g) and (h) of the Notification. Condition No.11 deals with the selection process and evaluation of criteria. The complaint lodged by the petitioner was investigated by the officials of the corporation and found that none of the allegations was established and accordingly, his complaint came to be rejected. The entire selection process is governed by the guidelines in vogue. 6. The counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the 5th respondent, in brief, is: She passed B.Tech. and her parents are government employees and their annual income is more than 5.00 lakhs. She submitted income proof of her parents along with her application for LPG Dealership of IOC. Her father viz., Alle Nagabhushanam gets monthly income of Rs.22,000/- and she submitted income proof. The officials of the Corporation verified the annual income of her parents. As per application form item No.13.2, she has given the outstanding balance available in her account as Rs.8,01,000/- and another account’s balance as Rs.3,70,000/-, apart from outstanding balance in the account of her parents. The total outstanding balance in her accounts and in the accounts of her parents is Rs.14,80,707/-. As per Item No.14.2 of the application, the outstanding balance in the account of the applicant and her parents is required to be furnished. The total extent of the premises, which has been obtained on lease from Mamidi Narayan Reddy, is 145.8 sq.feet. The dimensions of the premises satisfy the conditions stipulated in the application form. The Selection Committee awarded the marks as per the procedure and she secured 92.67 marks. The method of awarding marks is in accordance with the prescribed guidelines. 7. The writ petitioner has filed reply affidavit. It is stated in the reply affidavit that the selection committee has wrongly awarded 35 marks under the head of capacity of finance and also awarding of marks under various heads is contrary to the condition No.14.2. It is also stated in the reply affidavit that the deposit as indicated by the 5th respondent in her application is not in existing accounts and there are no deposits as mentioned in her application. 8. When the vacate stay petition came up for consideration, with the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties, the writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal. 9. Heard Sri L.Prabhakar Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner; Sri R.Raghunandan, learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 to 3; Sri K.M.J.D.Syamasunder, learned Central Government Standing Counsel, appearing for the 4th respondent and Sri Y.S.Y.Nand Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the 5th respondent. 10. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the premises, which the 5th respondent has taken on lease, does not have the required measurements and therefore, she is ineligible for allotment of LPG Dealership of IOC. By referring the lease deed dated 16.10.2007, learned counsel contends that the Mulgi includes the backside room and the total measurements of Mulgi with back side room has been shown as – North to South: 3.0 mts and East to West : 4.5 mts. According to the learned counsel, this backside portion cannot be treated as part and parcel of the main Mulgi in which case the specifications of the Mulgi do not meet the requirements of the conditions of the application. 11. Learned counsel appearing for the 5th respondent submits that awarding of marks by the Selection Committee is as per the L.P.G. Distributors guidelines and as the competent authority considered the allegations made by the writ petitioner in his complaint and found them baseless, it is impermissible for the writ petitioner to re-agitate the self- same grounds in the writ petition. He would also contend that as per the guideline No.2, in case of unmarried person/applicant, ‘Family Unit’ shall consist of individual concerned, his/her parents and his/her unmarried brother(s) and unmarried sister(s), and as the 5th respondent is unmarried, the authorities are justified in taking into consideration the balance outstanding in the accounts of her parents. 12. Since much emphases has been laid by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner on the aspect of premises being not suitable for the purpose of carrying on LPG Dealership business, I directed the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents 1 to 3 to place on record the application of the petitioner as well as the 5th respondent. 13. I have gone through the investigation report, which finds place in the file. Investigation is consequent on the complaint of the petitioner dated 08.08.2009. With regard to allegation as to the premises being not meeting the requirement of the application, the Investigating Officer has noted the following observation: “3. Allegation: The premises mentioned for show-room in the application, is not suitable as per IOC requirement. As per the lease agreement the premises leased out to Ms.Alle Archana is comprise of two rooms – one behind the other with a shutter. The dimensions of the premises leased to Ms.Alle Archana was physically measured and found that: a. The external dimensions of the premises are 7.5 M x 3 M; b. The internal dimensions without considering wall thickness is 7.5 M x 2.82 M. Requirement of dimension of showroom (as per application form) is 3 M x 4.5 M, does not specify whether the dimensions required are internal or external. In her reply to this observation Ms.Alle Archana, vide her letter dated 16.11.2009, assured that the owner Mr.N.Narayana Reddy is ready to make required modifications in the wall thickness so as to make 3 meters internal dimension, if required. Considering the above, it is not established that the showroom “is not suitable for a LPG showroom”. Hence, the allegation that the premises mentioned for showroom in the application, is not suitable as per IOC requirement is not established.” 14. It is also contended by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that it is the external dimensions which are required to be taken into consideration and not the external dimensions of the leased premises to decide whether the premises is suitable for LPG shop room. 15. The application does not indicate that the dimensions are of external or internal. Such is the situation, the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the specification of the leased premises do not meet the requirements of the measurements of the showroom as indicated in the application has no substance. 16. A contention has been advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the petitioner has not been given an opportunity while making the enquiry with regard to the allegations leveled in the complaint dated 08.08.2009. He refers instruction No.22 of the brochure on selection of INDANE (LPG) Distributors. In support of his submissions, reliance has been placed on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Monika Gupta v. Union of India & Ors.[1] 17. Instruction No.22 reads as hereunder: “22. Disposal of complaint: The disposal of complaints shall be as under: 22.1. Anonymous/pseudonymous complaints will normally not be investigated. 22.2. On receipt of a complaint a letter will be sent by the oil company to the complainant through Registered Post, asking him to submit details of allegation with a view to prima facie substantiate the allegations along with supporting documents, if any, within 30 days. Response of the complainant will be examined by the concerned oil company and if it is found that the complaint does not have specific and verifiable allegations, the same will be filed. 22.3 The complainant will be clearly advised that the complaint will be examined by the oil company and if it is established that the complaint does not have any substance, the complainant will be liable for legal action. 22.4. When a decision is taken to investigate the complaint, one Senior Officer will do the investigation. Thereafter, decision on the complaint will be taken as under:- 22.4.1. Complaints not substantiated: The complaint will be filed and the complainant will be advised accordingly. 22.4.2. Established complaint: In case of established complaint against the empanelled candidate, action will be taken with regard to appointment of the next candidate in the merit panel. In case of established complaints regarding marks awarded to any candidate, the Corporation reserves the right to make suitable changes/amendments in the results.” 18. I have gone through the enquiry report. All the allegations made by the petitioner in his complaint dated 08.08.2009 have been examined meticulously before recording a finding that the allegations are not substantiated. There is no requirement of giving personal hearing to the complainant in instruction No.22. In the absence of any such opportunity, the petitioner cannot be permitted to complain that the Investigating Officer has not given him a personal hearing. 19. In view of the above discussion, I find that there are no merits in the writ petition. 20. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. ______________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J. Date:31st August, 2010. cs THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Writ Petition No.19795 of 2009 Dated:31st August, 2010 [1] (2010) 6 SCC 574