IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.B.KOSHY & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN THURSDAY, THE 5TH JUNE 2008 / 15TH JYAISHTA 1930 WA.No. 1165 of 2008() --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.36264/2005 Dated 22/02/2008 .................... APPELLANT: PETITIONER:- ----------------------------------------- RAMANADHA PRABHU, S/O NARAYANA PRABHU, PAROLE, NEELESWAR, POST NEELESWAR, HOSDURG TALUK, KASARGOD. BY ADV. SRI.SURESH KUMAR KODOTH RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS:- ---------------------------------------------------- 1. THE MARKETING MANAGER, BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD., KANNUR. 2. THE REGIONAL OFFICER, BHARAT PETROLEUM CO.LTD., ERNAKULAM. 3. THE MARKETING MANAGER (SOUTH) NO.1 RANGANATHA TOWER, FB NO. 1212 AND 1213, BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION, ANNA NAGAR, CHENNAI 630 430. 4. THE CHAIRMAN & MANAGING DIRECTOR, BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD., BHARAT BHAVAN 4 & 5, CURRIMBHAY ROAD, BELLARD ESTATE, MUMBAI-400001. 5. P.C. UTHAMA RAJA TAMBURATTI (DEAD). ADDITIONAL RESPONDENT/LR OF RESPONDENT NO.5: --------------------------------------- 6. P.C.BHAGIRATHI, D/O.P.C.UTHAMA RAJA TAMBURATTI, RESIDING AT THEKKE KOVILAKAM, NEELESWAR P.O., HOSDURG TALUK, KASARGOD DISTRICT. BY THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss J.B.Koshy & P.N.Ravindran, JJ. ===================== W.A.No.1165 of 2008 ===================== Dated this the 5th day of June, 2008. JUDGMENT Ravindran,J. The petitioner in W.P.(C)No.36264 of 2005 is the appellant in this Writ Appeal. By judgment delivered on 22.2.2008, the learned single Judge dismissed the Writ Petition. The brief facts of the case are as follows: 2. By Ext.P1 notification dated 11.10.2003 the Bharat Petroleum Corporation invited bids from interested persons for transfer by outright sale/lease of lands belonging to them over which they have clear and marketable title, to the Corporation for setting up petrol/diesel retail outlets at various locations including Neeleshwaram in Kasaragod District. The petitioner submitted his bid and was called for negotiation. 3. While matters stood thus, the Bharat Petroleum Corporation issued Ext.P7 notification inviting bids from interested persons for transfer by outright sale/lease of lands WA 1165/08 -: 2 :- belonging to them over which they have clear and marketable title to the Corporation for setting up petrol/diesel retail outlets at various locations including Neeleshwaram Town (Near Bus stand) in Kasaragod District. The petitioner thereupon filed W.P. (C)No.26887 of 2004 in this Court challenging Ext.P7. 4. The Bharat Petroleum Corporation resisted the said Writ Petition contending inter alia that the proposed outlet in Neeleshwaram town has been reserved for members of the Scheduled Castes. By Ext.P10 judgment delivered on 11.10.2004, a learned single Judge of this Court dismissed the Writ Petition holding that though the petitioner had made an offer pursuant to Ext.P1, there is no concluded contract between him and the Corporation and that the Corporation is free to change its policy and to withdraw Ext.P1. It was held that it is for the Corporation to decide where the outlet should be established and whether it should be reserved for members of the Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes. 5. The present Writ Petition was filed aggrieved by the acceptance of the offer made by the fifth respondent, who is admittedly not a member of the Scheduled Castes. The petitioner WA 1165/08 -: 3 :- alleges that after having issued Ext.P7 notification reserving the outlet at Neeleshwaram town for members of the Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes, the acceptance of the fifth respondent's offer is bad. 6. The Bharat Petroleum Corporation filed a counter affidavit stating inter alia that after Ext.P10 judgment, the Corporation decided to cancel the reservation in respect of the proposed retail outlet at Neeleshwaram town in favour of the members of the Scheduled Castes and decided to treat it as one under the general category and thereupon a fresh notification, Ext.R1(e) dated 31.10.2003 was issued inviting fresh bids. The Corporation contended that though the notification was widely published, the petitioner did not respond. It was further contended that among the candidates, the fifth respondent was found eligible and her offer was accepted. The learned single Judge dismissed the Writ Petition holding that the petitioner, who failed to apply pursuant to Ext.R1(e) notification, is not entitled to challenge the acceptance of the offer made by the fifth respondent pursuant to Ext.R1(e). 7. We have heard the submissions made at the Bar by the WA 1165/08 -: 4 :- learned counsel appearing for the appellant. In our considered opinion, the learned Single Judge has rightly held that the petitioner, who did not submit any offer pursuant to Ext.R1(e) is not entitled to challenge the acceptance of the offer made by the fifth respondent. As held by this Court in Ext.P10 judgment to which the petitioner is a party, the Corporation is free to change its policy and to withdraw Ext.P7 and to decide where the outlet should be opened and whether it should be reserved for the members of the Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes. We are in full agreement with the view expressed by the learned single Judge that the challenge raised by the petitioner to the acceptance of the offer made by the fifth respondent is without any merit. The Writ Appeal accordingly fails and it is dismissed. J.B.Koshy, Judge. P.N.Ravindran, Judge. ess 27/6