IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO : 2983 of 2008 Between: U. Padma,W/o Rajendra Prasad R/o Voletivaripalem Village and Mandal, Prakasam District ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Hindustan Petroleum Corportion Ltd, rep by its Chief Regional Manager (Retail), Tadepally, Guntur District. 2 Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd,rep by its General Manager, Near Egmore Station, Chennai 3 Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd,rep by its Sales Officer,Near RTO Office, Bhagyanagar, Ongole, Prakasam District. 4 The Joint Collector, Ongole, Prakasam District. 5 The Mandal Revenue Officer, Voletivaripalem, Prakasam District. 6 N.Haripriya W/0 Suresh R/o Mahalaxmi Towers Golden Towers, Plot No.201,Santhapeta,Ongole. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a Writ, order or direction, one more particularly in the nature of a "Writ of Mandamus or any other writ, order, or direction declaring the action of the respondents No.1 to 3 in seeking to select and appoint the 6th respondent as the dealer for allotment of the retail outlet at Voletivaripalem Village & Mandal, Prakasam District as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and set aside the said action and consequently direct the respondents 1 to 3 select and appoint the petitioner herein as the Dealer for the operation of the said retail outlet at Voletivaripalem Village & Mandal,Pradasam District and pass such other order or orders as the Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the cases. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.S.NIRANJAN REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.THOOMSRINIVAS The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.2983 of 2008 ORDER: This writ petition is filed seeking a declaration that the action of respondents 1 to 3-Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited in selecting the 6th respondent for allotment of the dealership in respect of Retail Outlet at Voletivaripalem Village and Mandal, Prakasam District, is arbitrary and illegal. The 1st respondent-Corporation vide public notification dated 3.10.2005 invited applications for appointment of Retail Dealers including Voletivaripalem Village & Mandal in Prakasam District which is reserved under the category of ‘Women’ (OC). Altogether, 5 candidates including the writ petitioner appeared for the interviews held on 16.12.2005. The Selection Committee empanelled one Smt V.Madhavi as the most meritorious candidate in panel and the 6th respondent was the second candidate in the Merit Panel. However, since the petitioner could not achieve the minimum qualifying marks of 50%, she was not included in the Merit Panel. Pursuant to the said selections, though the most meritorious candidate Smt. V.Madhavi was issued a Letter Of Intent (LOI), since she had withdrawn her candidature, the said letter of intent was cancelled. Thereafter, the LOI dated 11.1.2008 was issued in favour of the 6th respondent herein since she was the second empanelled candidate in the Merit Panel. Aggrieved by the same, this writ petition is filed contending that awarding of higher marks to the 6th respondent resulting in her selection and appointment as Dealer is arbitrary and illegal. It is the case of the writ petitioner that she was fully eligible for being appointed as Retail Dealer since she had offered three sites for locating the Retail Outlet in compliance with the requirement under the notification dated 3.10.2005. It is contended that the said sites offered by her, being fully developed and adjoining the main road, were suitable for the proposed Retail Outlet, and there was no reason to reject her candidature. On the other hand since the site offered by the 6th respondent for establishing the Retail Outlet was not in conformity with the measurements specified in the notification, empanelling her in the merit list was arbitrary and illegal. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents 1 to 3, it is explained that the 6th respondent along with her application filed a copy of the Sale Deed dated 10.11.2005 in respect of the land offered by her, admeasuring 2240 Sq Mts., equivalent to Ac.0.56 cents showing the dimensions of the land as 30 Mts frontage and 74.9 Mts., depth. Similarly the petitioner offered the land for locating the Retail Outlet and as per the evaluation made by the Site Selection Committee, the petitioner secured higher marks (82) than the 6th respondent (80). However, after the final evaluation of their candidatures under the heads of assessment, the petitioner could secure 39.83% marks, which was far lesser than the qualifying marks of 50% whereas the 6th respondent stood second having secured 78% marks. It is also explained that the documents pertaining to the 6th respondent with regard to the site offered by her were forwarded for title verification and the matter would be finally reviewed by the Corporation’s Legal Department, and before accepting the same, the exact measurements of the site would be assessed through a Government Revenue Surveyor to ensure that the site is admeasuring 30 X 30 Mts as stipulated in the notification dated 03.10.2005. It is also made clear in the counter affidavit that in case the site does not confirm to the requirements as per the notification, it would not be accepted and appropriate further steps would be taken by the Corporation. I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties. As could be seen from the guidelines for selection of Retail Outlet Dealers, the suitability of the site offered by the applicant is also one of the paraments for selection and the marks allotted by the Site Selection Committee would be taken into account and proportionate weightage would be given while finalizing the selection. As noticed above, the only contention raised by the petitioner while assailing the selection of the 6th respondent is that the site offered by her is not in conformity with the required specifications. On the other hand, it is claimed that the three sites offered by the writ petitioner are more suitable for locating the Retail Outlet. It is clear from the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Corporation that so far as the suitability of the site offered by the applicants is concerned, the petitioner had secured higher marks than the 6th respondent. Hence the allegation of the petitioner that the Corporation had ignored the fact that the sites offered by her were more suitable and fully developed for locating the proposed Retail Outlet is unfounded and without any basis. However the counter affidavit shows that though the petitioner was awarded higher marks of 82% by the Site Selection Committee after evaluating the suitability of the site offered by her, she could not secure sufficient marks under the other heads of assessment and thus she was not qualified for empanelment in the Merit Panel. In the circumstances, the action of the Corporation in not including the petitioner in the Merit Panel cannot be held to be either arbitrary or illegal. So far as the 6th respondent’s empanelment is concerned, though the fact that she was issued a LOI is not in dispute, it is stated in the counter affidavit that the Corporation is yet to take a final decision and the suitability of the site offered by the 6th respondent would be verified through a Government Revenue Surveyor to ensure that the said site is in conformity with the required specifications. Thus it is clear that no final decision as such is taken by the corporation as on today in favour of the 6th respondent. Hence, the writ petition itself is premature and the declaration as sought for cannot be granted at this stage. Viewed from any angle, the writ petition is devoid of merit and the same is accordingly dismissed. No costs. _______________ Justice G. Rohini Date:25.06.2009 mrb