IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.436 of 2010 1. JAI PRAKASH PANDEY S/O JAGDISH PANDEY R/O VILL.- MISHRAULI GAYGHAT, P.O.- BALUA, P.S.- BRAHMPUR, DISTT.- BUXAR Versus 1. THE UNION OF INDIA, THROUGH THE SECRETARY MINISTRY OF PETROLEUM, GOVT. OF INDIA, NEW DELHI 2. THE CHIEF REGIONAL MANAGER INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD.( MARKETING DIVISION ) PATNA, DIVISIONAL OFFICE, MAURYA LOK COMPLEX, DAK BUNGLOW ROAD, PATNA 3. THE INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD. THROUGH ITS CHIEF REGIONAL MANAGER INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD. MARKET DIVISION, PATNA DIVISIONAL OFFICE, MAURYA LOK COMPLEX, DAK BUNGALOW ROAD, PATNA 4. THE DEALERS SELECTION COMMITTEE NOMINATED BY THE CENTRAL MANAGER INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD. LOK NAYAK BHAWAN, DAK BUNGLOW ROAD, PATNA 5. THE GENERAL MANAGER INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD. LOK NAYAK BHAWAN, DAK BUNGLOW ROAD, PATNA 6. THE DY. MANAGER ( SALES ) PATNA- II SALES AREA, INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD. ( MARKETING DIVISION ), MAURYA LOK COMPLEX,DAK BUNGLOW ROAD, PATNA 7. POONAM KUMARI W/O KRISHNA CHATURVEDI R/O VILL.- SHAITHU, P.O.- JAMAULI, DISTT.- BUXAR 8. BINOD KUMAR MISHRA S/O KAMAL MISHRA R/O VILL.- SIMARI, DISTT.- BUXAR 9. DINESH KUMAR SINGH S/O RAMJI SINGH R/O VILL.- SANAHI DERA, KURANSARAI, MURGOAN, DISTT.- BUXAR ----------- FOR THE APPELLANT:- MR MOHAN KR.SINGH, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.1:- MR G.KUMAR, CGC FOR IOC:- MR.K.D.CHATTERJI, SR.ADVOCATE, A.K.SINHA & A.K.VERMA. --------- 2. 17.03.2011. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, and learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. The instant appeal has been preferred against order dated 28.1.2010, passed in C.W.J.C.No. 14149 of 2008, whereby the writ petition of the appellant challenging the selection of Outlet dealership of MS/HSD 2 by the Indian Oil Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the IOC), was rejected by the learned Single judge. The appellant filed the writ petition, namely, C.W.J.C.No. 14149 of 2008, for commanding the respondent–IOC to cancel the selection of respondent nos. 7 to 9 for installation of retail outlet of MS./H.S.D. at Brahmpur in the district of Buxar made by the Selection Committee. 3.The case has a chequered history, and the relevant facts necessary for disposal of the case is being stated herein after. On 1.9.2000, the IOC brought out an advertisement inviting applications for appointment of a dealer in respect of retail outlet Petrol Pump in Brahmpur in the district of Buxar within the State of Bihar. The appellant was one of the applicants. After due verification of applications, the IOC forwarded the application of the eligible candidates to the Dealer Selection Board (hereinafter referred to as the DSB) for selection. After interviewing the candidates, a merit list was prepared in which one Smt Punam Kumari figured at serial no.1 followed by one Dinesh Kumar Singh and Anil Kumar. A letter of intent was issued in her favour on 8.11.2001. After receipt of the letter of intent, Punam Kuamri started 3 operating retail outlet from 12.1.2001. In the meantime, the appellant challenged the selection made by the DSB before this Court in C.W.J.C.No. 14506 of 2001, on the ground that though his father made available the substantive land to the IOC by way of lease, he was not given preference in the matter of allotment of retail outlet in his favour. The learned Single judge vide order dated 15.1.2004 allowed the writ petition and quashed the selection made by the DSB on the ground that preference ought to have been given to him as his father had given his land on lease to the IOC for 30 years. Aforesaid Punam Kumari challenged the order dated 15.1.2004 in appeal, being LPA No.409 of 2004 on the ground that the impugned order quashing her selection was passed without even making her a party, much less hearing her. On 3.2.2004, the LPA bench gave her opportunity to file an application before the writ court which would hear the matter afresh. The learned Single judge after hearing the parties took the same view and held that preference ought to have been given to the appellant as his father had leased out 30 acres of land in favour of the IOC. The appellant being aggrieved by the order, moved the Hon'ble Apex 4 court against order dated 7.4.2004, passed in LPA No. 409 of 2004. The Hon'ble Apex court disposed of the Special Leave To Appeal (Civil) No. 14039 of 2004 vide order dated 21.4.2008, with the following direction contained in para 10 thereof :- “While declining to interfere in the matter, because of the procedural lapses noticed by learned Single judge, we direct that instead of DSB, which is no longer in existence, in the line of what has been directed by this Court in another case, we direct that consideration shall be made by the Section Committee nominated by the General Manager, IOC, Bihar State Office, Patna, who is stated to be the State Head. Let the Committee deal with the matter expeditiously. Since the matter is pending long, we direct the committee to consider the matter in its proper perspective, by taking into account all the materials already on record and to be placed by the parties. Let the exercise be completed within a period of four months from today. We make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.” 4. After the decision of the Hon’ble Apex court, the DSB constituted by the General Manager, IOC, interviewed the candidates and fresh select list was prepared in which respondent no.7 to 9 headed the panel of select list. The appellant challenged the fresh select list which was rejected by the learned Single judge. The learned Single judge held that the retail outlet at 5 Brahmpur did not form part of the land which was leased by the appellant’s father to the IOC. As such, he could not have claimed preference in respect of the same. Learned Single judge held that in special circumstances a preferential treatment can be given to the candidates if other things remain the same. In this respect, the learned Single judge in support of his view placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex court in case of Ritu Mahajan Vs. Indian Oil Corporation, (2009)3 SCC, p 506. He Lordship also noticed that despite grant of opportunity by the DSB, the appellant did not produce the original residential certificate. In this regard, learned counsel for the appellant submits that as already a photo copy of the residential certificate was available on the record and neither the IOC nor the DSB found any infirmity in the same, the DSB erred in asking it again. 5. Mr. K.D.Chatterjee, learned counsel appearing for the IOC submits that the DSB started fresh selection process in view of the order of the Hon'ble Apex court. The Apex court had directed the Board to consider the matter in the proper perspective by taking into account the materials already on record and to be placed by the 6 parties. In view of the aforesaid direction, the DSB issued interview letters to the all the candidates. He submits that as per the interview letter issued by the DSB, the appellant was required to appear before it on 24.7.2008 along with all the original documents. It was stipulated in the notice that non-production of any of the documents would lead to disqualification. In spite of notice, the appellant did not produce the original residential certificate. As such, his name did not figure in the merits list prepared by the DSB. He submits that the IOC had already procured land in advance. As such, clause relating to the preference in allotment of outlet would not be applicable in his case. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials on record. The appellant was required to produce all the original certificates that he had submitted along with the application form vide notice dated 4.1.2008 to the IOC as contained in annexure R1 to the counter affidavit in the writ petition. It was clearly stipulated in the notice that failure to produce any of the original documents would lead to disqualification of the candidate. A company giving dealership is within its 7 right to satisfy itself regarding availability of the original copies of the documents submitted by the parties. The appellant has himself to be blamed for not producing the original residential certificate for verification and satisfaction of the authorities. The Hon'ble Apex court in his order had directed that it would take into account all the materials on record and to be placed by the parties. Thus, we do not find any fault with the selection process for not selecting the appellant. It further appears from the order of the learned Single judge that the appellant’s father has been duly benefited for leasing out 30 acres of and to the IOC, as such no preference can be claimed particularly when he fails to produce the original residential certificate that he had filed earlier with the application form. 7. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we do not find any merit in the appeal. It is accordingly dismissed. (S.K.Katriar,J). Shashi (S.P.Singh,J).