1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.6405 OF 2009 Sanjay s/o Nilkanthrao Lakhepatil, R/o-Shreeshail, Opp. Jalna Co-operative Sugar Mill, Ramnagar, Jalna, Tq. & Dist-Jalna. ...PETITIONER. VERSUS 1) The Co-ordinator, L.P.G. Distributor Selection Committee, Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd., Divisional Office for Jalgaon Territory, having its office at P-27, Additional M.I.D.C. Jalgaon, Dist-Jalgaon, 2) Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. (A Government of India Enterprise), having its registered office at Bharat Bhavan, 4-6, Currimbhoy Road, Ballard Estate, P.B. No.688, Mumbai-400001, Through its Chief Executive Officer, 3) The Union of India, Ministry of Petroleum, New Delhi, 4) Vijay Vinayakrao Ghodke, ...RESPONDENTS. 2 ... Shri.V.D. Gunale Advocate for Petitioner. Shri.S.D. Kulkarni Advocate for Respondent Nos.1 and 2. Shri. Alok Sharma, Standing Counsel for Respondent No.3. Shri. A.B. Kale Advocate for Respondent No.4. ... WITH WRIT PETITION NO.8212 OF 2009 Vijay s/o Vinayakrao Ghodke, R/o- Nutan Yeshwant Housing Society, N-8, CIDCO, Near Maulana Azad Chowk, Aurangabad. ...PETITIONER. VERSUS 1) The Co-ordinator LPG Distributor Selection Committee, Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd., Divisional Office, Jalgaon Territory, having its office at P-27, Additional M.I.D.C. Jalgaon, Dist-Jalgaon. 2) Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. (A Government of India Enterprise), having its registered office at Bharat Bhavan, 46, Karimbhai Road, Ballard Estate, P.B. No.688, Mumbai-400001, Through its Chief Executive Officer, 3) The Union of India, Ministry of Petroleum, New Delhi, 4) Sanjay Lakhe Patil, R/o-Shrishailya, Ramnagar, Opp. Jalna Co-operative Sugar Mill, Ramnagar, Jalna, Tq. & Dist-Jalna. ...RESPONDENTS. 3 ... Shri. A.B. Kale Advocate for Petitioner. Shri. S.D. Kulkarni Advocate for Respondent Nos.1 and 2. Shri. Alok Sharma, Standing Counsel for Respondent No.3. Shri. V.D. Gunale Advocate for Respondent No.4. ... CORAM: NARESH H. PATIL AND K.K. TATED, JJ. DATE : 30TH JUNE, 2010. PER COURT : 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The Petitioner in Writ Petition No.8212 of 2009 ( Vijay Vinayak Ghodke) was empanelled at Sr. No.1 in the selection list of L.P.G. Distributors at Badnapur Dist-Jalna. On a complaint filed by Mr. Rajkamal Karwa and Nandlal Rathi, the Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd., in exercise of powers under Rules 21 to 22 of Bharat Petroleum Corporation, reviewed the cases of the applicants and reconstituted the list of empanelled candidates. In the reconstituted list, 4 the Petitioner in Writ Petition No.8212 of 2009 was placed at Sr. No.12 and Petitioner in Writ Petition No.6405 of 2009 (Sanjay Lakhepatil) who was at Sr. No.2 in earlier panel, was put at Sr. No.1. 3. Learned counsel Shri A.B. Kale alleges that the Petitioner in Writ Petition No.6405 of 2009 – Sanjay Lakhepatil, being a political heavy weight, prevailed over the Authorities in getting his number of empanelment changed from Sr. No.2 to Sr. No.1. The company does not have power to review the list after the candidates were empanelled. It is further contended that opportunity of hearing is required to be given to the Petitioner in Writ Petition No.8212 of 2009 and if complaint was made in respect of a particular candidates, then there was no necessity for the company to evaluate the cases of all the applicants. 4. Affidavit in reply was filed by Bharat 5 Petroleum Corporation Ltd. Through its Territory Manager, in Writ Petition No.8212 of 2009. In Para 3, 4, 7 and 8 of the reply the deponent contends that: “3) I deny the allegations in para No.7 of the writ Petition that, during the pendency of the writ petition no.6405 of 2009, the respondent No.1 & 2 have abruptly and without following any procedure, revived the list when there was no reason for the same. I say that, there were complaints from M/s. Rajkamal Ramprasad Karva and Nandlal Shivlal Rathi, who have applied for LPG distributorship, about the allotment of marks and hence in view of Rule 21, the complaints were entertained and they were considered by the legally constituted committee. I say that, as per the procedure of selection, first L1 committee gives 89 marks out of 100. I 6 say that, the 89 marks which can be allotted by the L1 committee are: (a) Capability to provide infrastructure: 35 marks (b) Capability to provide finance: 35 marks, (c) Educational Qualification : 15 marks, (d) Age: 4 marks -------------- Total : 89 marks The marks to be given by L2 Committee: (e) Experience : 4 marks (f) Business ability : 5 marks (g) Personality : 2 marks -------------- Total :11 marks 4) I say that, now the change in the marks of the petitioner is only on the basis of record 7 and hence no hearing was necessary. I say that, the grievance of Mr. Rajkamal Karva and Nandlal Rathi are that they were evaluated on individual basis when they have applied on partnership basis and hence requested for recalculating the marks which are likely to change the result. I say that, one of the clauses of the guidelines states, In case of established complaint against the empaneled candidate, action will be taken with regard to appointment of the next candidate in the merit panel. In case of established complaint regarding marks awarded to any candidate, the Corporation reserves the right to make suitable changes/ amendments in the results. 7) In the revaluation, it was found, the petitioner has submitted fixed deposit for value of Rs.18 lakhs dated 05.10.2007 (refer Exh. B 8 submitted by the petitioner at page 21). The fixed deposit/NSC/shares etc., should be as on the date of advertisement i.e. 06.09.2007. As the fixed deposit is of the latter date, hence it was not possible to consider his marks and hence marks of the petitioner are reduced from 18 to zero. Similarly, the petitioner has submitted Rs. 2,72,450/- as gross annual income (refer Exh. B submitted by the petitioner at page 22) and in revaluation, his marks were reduced from 5 to 2.7 marks based on 0.1 mark for every complete unit of Rs. 10,000/- (this is also clear from Exh. G submitted by the petitioner). Hence under the head “capability to provide Finance”, the petitioner’s marks were reduced from 35 to 14.7. The Exh. B and G annexed to the petition, by the petitioner supports the reduction of 20.3 marks of the 9 petitioner. 8) I say that, 18 marks of Mr. Ghodke are reduced, because the FD shown by the petitioner was after the date of advertisement i.e. On 05.10.2007 but the date of advertisement is 06.09.2007. I say that, 2.3 marks of petitioner was reduced under the income head and hence total 20.3 marks of the petitioner are reduced and only because of this correction in marks, the petitioner’s rank as per the revised scrutiny list dated 09.11.2009 has gone much below. I deny the allegation that the respondent No.1 is politically sound personality and belong to congress (I) party and change is made only to adjust the respondent No.4 in the place of petitioner. I say that, the Grievance Committee has reconsidered the earlier record and the correction is made as per the norms given in Rule 9, 11, 13 & 14 and hence I deny 10 that the decision is arbitrary or with a view to favour the respondent No.4.” 5. Learned counsel Shri. Kulkarni appearing for the Bharat Petroleum Corporation submitted that in view of clauses 14.2 and 14.3 of the advertisement, it was found that the Petitioner in Writ Petition No. 8212 of 2009 did not satisfy the requirement of the same; therefore the marks allotted to the Petitioner in Writ Petition No. 8212 of 2009 were re-adjusted. The marks of the said Petitioner were in-fact reduced on the ground that the said Petitioner does not satisfy the requirement under clauses 14.2 and 14.3 of the advertisement. 6. Learned counsel Shri. Kulkarni submitted that Bharat Petroleum Corporation in exercise of powers under Rule 21 to 22, investigated the matter on the complaint received and after scrutinising all the applications, reconstituted 11 the panel. 7. We have perused the notification placed on record, the relevant rules and the clauses of the advertisement. The allegations made against the Petitioner in Writ Petition No.6405 of 2009 are denied by the counsel Mr. Gunale. The stand of Bharat Petroleum Company is that the marks obtained by the Petitioner in Writ Petition No. 8212 of 2009 were reduced for non compliance of clauses 14.2 and 14.3 of the advertisement. The Corporation is entitled to select best candidate as a Distributor for them. The relationship between the parties would be contractual after they enter into final agreement and after getting letter of intent. Certainly it is mandatory for the company to follow the clauses of the advertisement, rules framed by the company and maintain a fair and transparent procedure. The Court in a given fact situation could not substitute its opinion in respect of decision as to which candidate is most suitable for the 12 purposes in accordance with the procedure established. 8. In exercise of extra ordinary writ jurisdiction and in the facts of the present case no interference is warranted. The Writ Petition No.8212 of 2009 is dismissed. Writ Petition No. 6405 of 2009 wherein the Petitioner was empanelled at Sr. No.1, is disposed of as infructuous. The Petitioner in Writ Petition No.8212 of 2009 if desires, may approach the higher Authorities of the Corporation. [K.K. TATED, J.] [NARESH H. PATIL, J.] asb/JUNE10/wp6405.09