IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.7186 of 2008 Sunita Kumari, Wife of Surendra Prasad Paswan, Resident of Village & P.O.- Muradpur, Via.-Rosera, District-SAmastipur. …… Petitioner. VERSUS 1. The Union of India, through Secretary, Ministry of Petroleum, New Delhi. 2. Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. 3. Chief Divisional Manager (Marketing Division), Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. Patna Divisional Office, Maurya Lok Complex, Dak Bunglow Road, Patna. 4. Senior Divisional Retail Sales Manager, Eastern Region, Indian Oil Corporation, Begusarai Divisional Office, Begusarai. …….Respondents. **** Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. Mukul Sinha. Advocates for the Respondents : Mr. Kali Das Chatterji. Mr. Amlesh Kumar Verma. **** 05 15.04.2009 The petitioner being a scheduled caste lady responded to advertisement issued by the Indian Oil Corporation for establishment of a S.K.O.-L.D.O. dealership reserved for scheduled caste category at Waris Nagar in the district of Samastipur. The advertisement was issued in August 2000, apart from petitioner several other also applied. After interview, petitioner was empanelled as the second candidate. The first candidate was Smt. Neelam Kumari. It appears that another empanelled candidate Smt. Leela Devi made a complaint about her non- selection. At this time in newspapers on 23rd August, 2002 a report appeared alleging that the said Neelam Kumari amongst others for other dealerships was selected on extraneous consideration. It was alleged that Smt. Neelam Kumari was the daughter-in-law of the sitting BJP MLA Sri Ram Sevak Hazari and it is this that influenced her selection. There being large number of report appearing in national newspapers, Government of India decided to cancel dealerships selections that were 2 made during those periods. This laid to writ applications being filed in different High Courts challenging the said decision of the Central Government. Ultimately, all those proceedings were transferred to the Apex Court. The Apex Court appointed a two member committee headed by Justice S.C. Agrawal to enquire into each of the dealerships and submit a report. Agrawal Committee examined all the disputed dealerships and came to a finding that not all could be said to be vitiated on extraneous considerations some of which included the dealerships with which we are concerned, the Agrawal Committee held to be vitiated. This report was submitted to the Apex Court, which then required the dealers and the Central Government to file their objections. The Central Government accepted the recommendation of the Agrawal Committee. The dealers who had been picked up by the Agrawal Committee also protested. It is not in dispute that the Apex Court accepted the recommendations of the Agrawal Committee rejecting the defence of the tented selected persons. The result was that the selection of the said Neelam Kumari, as the first empanelled candidate, was held to be wrong and accordingly struck off. The Agrawal Committee had pointed out that she was in fact ineligible but was empanelled, as a candidate no. 1, merely, because she happened to be daughter-in-law of sitting BJP MLA. The Central Government in its affidavit before the Apex Court had made various suggestions. It is not in dispute that the Apex Court neither did it approve nor disapprove those suggestions. They 3 merely held the disqualifications, as pointed out by the Agrawal Committee, to be correct and disposed of the matter. The petitioner’s grievance is that undisputedly she was the second empanelled candidate. The first empanelled candidate having been found to be ineligible by the Apex Court, as a natural consequence, the second empanelled candidate should have then been considered for the dealership, it is submitted, was natural and the only legal consequence. Indian Oil Corporation not having taken any further action in the matter, after the orders of the Apex Court, the petitioner filed this writ petition. Mr. K.D. Chatterji, learned counsel appears for the Indian Oil Corporation and submits that ordinarily the aforenoted position would have operated but for the affidavit filed by the Central Government before the Apex Court, in which various suggestions were made by the India Oil Corporation, being a Government of India undertaking could not deviate from the suggestions, as made by the Ministry. Having considered the matter and given anxious thought to the submission, in my view, the submission cannot be accepted. The affidavit of the Central Government before the Apex Court, a copy of which was made available to the Court, contained only suggestions and were apparently for an interregnum to avoid hardships to consumers between the cancellation of selection and appointment of fresh dealers. There being no dispute that the Supreme Court chose not to deal with suggestions. It cannot be said that those suggestions became a part of 4 the judgment. They were merely pleadings and pleadings have no binding precedent, especially, when they are not subject matter of judgment. Thus, in my view, whatever the stand of the Central Government may be in the affidavits filed before the Apex Court that cannot govern the Corporation or that cannot come in way of the Corporation in giving effect to the orders of the Apex Court. One may look at it from the different point of view, as well. What the Apex Court said, was merely, what was required to Indian Oil Corporation itself. At the first instance, it was required of Dealer Selection Board at the first instance itself to have disqualified the ineligible candidate. The consequence of disqualification would then have automatically operated at the stage of the Dealer Selection Board itself and automatically the petitioner, who was the second empanelled candidate, would have then be treated as the first empanelled candidate, who if found otherwise would have to be favoured with a letter of intent. The Dealer Selection Board having failed to discharge its duty in lawful manner. The Apex Court had stepped in otherwise. There was no difference that could be brought about on the ground that the matter was decided by the Apex Court. It makes a little difference in respect of consequences that flowed. In such a situation, I am left with no option but to hold that failure of Indian Oil Corporation in treating petitioner, as the first empanelled candidate for the dealership, in question, is wrong, arbitrary and unlawful. They have failed to perform their duty in respect of norms settled by them. I, accordingly, direct that petitioner to be 5 treated, as the first empanelled candidate, for the dealership in question and Indian Oil Corporation would now proceed further in the matter in accordance with law. As the matter has been pending for almost a decade now since the advertisement, it is expected that Indian Oil Corporation would proceed quickly in the matter and settled it once and for all within a period of six months from today. With these observations and directions, the writ petition is being disposed of. Trivedi/ (Navaniti Prasad Singh, J.)