IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.15115 of 2009 1. M/S SANJAY GAS DISTRIBUTOR PVT. LTD. THROUGH ITS DIRECTOR SANJAY NATH RAVI S/O SRI BAIDYA NATH PRASAD HAVING ITS OFFICE AT KAZI - INDDA, CHAINPUR, P.S. MANIYARI, DISTT- MUZAFFARPUR, Versus 1. M/S BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD. HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT BHARAT BHAWAN, 4 & 6, CURRIMBHOY ROAD, BALLARD ESTATE, P.BOX NO. 688, MUMBAI-400001, THROUGH THE GENERAL MANAGER 2. THE GENERAL MANAGER, M/S BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD, HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT BHARAT BHAWAN, 4&6 CURRIMBHOY ROAD , BALLARD ESTATE, P.BOX NO. 688, MUMBAI, 400001 3. AREA MARKETING MANAGER, M/S BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD. 3RD FLOOR,ASHIANA CHAMBER, EXHIBITION ROAD , PATNA -800001, (BIHAR) 4. TERRITORY MANAGER (LPG) M/S BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD. PATNA LPG TERRITORY- CUM - BOTTLING PLANT FATUHA INDUSTRIAL AREA , MOUZA RAIPURA, P.O.&P.S. FATUHA, DISTT- PATNA 5. UNION OF INDIA THROUGH THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF PETROLEUM AND NATURAL GAS, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA. ----------- For the Petitioner :- Mr. Y. V. Giri, Sr. Advocate & Raju Giri. For Union of India :- Mr. Umesh Narayan Dubey, CGC. For the B.P.C.L. :- Mr. Madhuresh Prasad. ------ 5 19/02/2010 The petitioner was an applicant for appointment of a L.P.G. distributorship for the respondent Bharat Petroleum - 2 - Corporation Limited. The dealership was to be located at Muzaffarpur. The details of the advertisements and terms and conditions was published in the daily news paper “Times of India” dated 17.10.2007 which is annexure-1 to the writ application. Pursuant to the said advertisement many a persons applied which included the petitioner. The petitioner had applied in the category of Non Individual applicant since it was a registered company. In the eligibility criteria as well as in evaluation criteria marks have to be awarded under various heads or parameters. Some of the examples being educational qualification, age, personality, experience etc. As per original advertisement contained in Annexure-1 non individual applicants had to be given full marks under some of these heads which were part of the policy coupled with the fact that a Company being a juristic person, these parameters cannot be judged like any individual. It is not in dispute that after applications came to be filed by the eligible candidates, the same were not acted upon for reasons which may not be legally required to be looked into. Before the process of selection could begin the - 3 - Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas brought certain changes to the guidelines which were duly notified on 15.09.2008. The amended guidelines notified is on record as Annexure-B to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited. By virtue of this amended guidelines, a new set of parameters for evaluation and the marks to be awarded under various heads for non individual candidates came to be changed. These parameters or amendment has the effect of taking away certain advantages in award of marks to the petitioner as and when the selection would have been made. It is this apprehension which has compelled the petitioner to file the present writ application raising a basic question whether any changes in the guidelines and the selection process could be effected midway and after the petitioner had responded on the basis of the original advertisement dated 17.10.2007. The petitioner wants a direction upon the respondents to either carry out the selection on the basis of the old advertisement or ask the Corporation to issue a fresh advertisement with the new terms and conditions to enable the petitioner to make suitable amends in his application to take care of the amendments - 4 - brought into effect at a subsequent stage. According to the petitioner if purported intervention is not made by the Court granting reliefs prayed for by him serious prejudice is going to be caused against him if the selection process is allowed to continue. The Court directed both the Corporation and the Ministry of Petroleum to file their counter affidavit and to explain their stand. The statement of the Ministry is that the amended guidelines dated 15.09.2008 was issued on the basis of certain directions and recommendations which emerged out of deliberations made by the Committee on petitions of Lok Sabha Secretariat. Certain discriminatory and advantageous positions accruing in favour of non individual candidates to the detriment of other eligible candidates was pointed out after detailed deliberations. The Ministry advised the Oil Companies to lay down new norms for evaluation and award of marks with regard to non individual candidates. This was done with the object of granting parity vis-à-vis other candidates as also prevent award of multiple dealership which were or would be cornered by making applications under non individual candidates category. Their stand is that - 5 - it is a uniform policy brought into effect across the country and all the Oil Companies were duly advised to conduct selections not done on the basis of the amended guidelines. The stand of the respondent Corporation, on the other hand, is that the petitioner has filed the present writ application by deliberately suppressing certain vital facts. The writ petition suffers from the principle of acquiescence, waiver and estoppel. The petitioner had agreed to abide by the amended guidelines. He filed an affidavit in support thereof based not only on the advertisement issued by all the Oil Companies (Annexure-A series) but even individual communication made with him in this regard. It is not open to the petitioner now to turn around and challenge the same. The affidavits filed by the petitioner contained in Annexure- A series dated 26.8.2009 was in response to the letter dated 17.8.2009 which is annexure-3 to the writ application brought on record by the petitioner. The other aspect is that there is no challenge to the amended provision dated 15.9.2008 in the writ application. All these facts have been intentionally suppressed or given a go-bye in the writ application. The Corporation any way is - 6 - going by the guidelines which have been issued by the Ministry from time to time and even in the original advertisement dated 17.10.2007 clause 19 gives authority to the Corporation to amend, cancel or withdraw an advertisement or extend the due date. The Company had discretion in this regard and nothing un-usual has been done by way of modification brought to the guidelines dated 15.9.2008. The Company does not deny that few selections had been made prior to the amendment having been brought into effect but no selection has been made on the old parameters after the notification dated 15.9.2008. All selections and evaluations are going to be made on the basis of the amended guidelines. The Court has gone through the documents which are there on record. Submission of the learned counsel for the Corporation seems to be correct that the petitioner has responded to the Corporation in terms of the letter contained in Annexure-3. A categorical affidavit has been filed by the petitioner before the Corporation willing to abide by the terms and conditions including the amended guidelines. - 7 - Nowhere in the said affidavit or response any rider or reservation has been expressed. If that be so, can the petitioner be allowed to resile from the stated position. It is also a fact that there is no prayer in the writ application throwing any challenge to the amended provisions. The prayer is for conducting interview on the basis of the old parameters or a direction upon the respondents to issue fresh advertisement. Neither of the two prayers can be stated to be a challenge to the amended provisions. If the amended provision is otherwise not declared to be arbitrary in any manner, then the selection will have to be made on the basis of the prevailing parameters. Evaluation of non individual candidates will be made not only in the case of the present petitioners but of such candidates who are in fray for various locations not only in the State of Bihar but across the country. If the amended provision is uniformly applied across the country without any discrimination or pick and choose, there is no reason why a direction be issued in favour of the petitioner to carry out the process of selection on the basis of old parameters or compel the Corporation to go for re-advertisement. - 8 - It is best left to the wisdom of the petitioner to either participate in the said selection process or await their chance if a new set of advertisement is issued by the respondents. No case for direction or interference has been made out. This writ application is dismissed. AMIN (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)