IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE No.12144 of 2005 --------------- Suman Kumar, son of Kameshwar Prasad Das, resident of village Bhagat Chouki, P.S. Muffasil, District Munger ….. Petitioner Versus 1. The Union of India, through Secretary, Department of Petroleum and Natural Gas, Government of India, New Delhi 2. Managing Director, Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited, New Delhi 3. General Manager, Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited, Calcutta 4. The Selection Committee, Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited, Patna 5. Area Marketing Manager, Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited, IVth Floor Ashiana Chamber Exhibition Road, Patna 6. Co-ordinator, Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited, Ashiana Chamber, 3rd Floor, Exhibition Road, Patna 7. Vijay Kumar Gupta, son of Permanand Gupta, resident of Muhalla Keshopur, P.S. Jamalpur, District Munger 8. Anandi Das, son of Musaharoo Paswan, resident of village Bhagat Chouki, P.S. Muffasil, District Munger 9. Srikant Prasad, son of Ramchandra Yadav, resident of village Mahuli Sikarpur, P.S. Muffasil, District Munger … Respondents -------- For the Petitioner : M/s Amresh Kumar Sinha and Raj Kumar Paswan, Advocates. For the Respondents : None. -------- 03/ 04.08.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. No one appears for the respondents. 2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for the following reliefs :- (i) To direct the respondent-authorities to act in accordance with law and circular laid down by the Company and act accordingly. (ii) To direct the respondents to do justice with petitioner. (iii) To further direct the respondents to allot the petrol pump (Retail out let) for distribution of Petroleum Products of Bharat Petroleum to the petitioner which 2 is injustice with the petitioner by the Selection Committee. (iv) To keep the allotment of Petrol Pump (Retail outlet) at Nawagarhi (Munger) in abeyance till disposal of the present writ petition which ever not decided by this Court. (v) For any other relief/reliefs for which the petitioner is entitled for. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he was one of the four applicants for allotment of a retail outlet of Bharat Petroleum at Nawagarhi, Munger, for which a notice inviting tender was published on 22.02.2004 . He further submits that on several heads remarks were given to all the four applicants, out of whom the petitioner got the lowest marks, whereas, highest number of marks was given to one Vijay Kumar Gupta, in whose favour the allotment was made. He also submits that he has impleaded all the other three candidates as party-respondents to this writ petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that from the mark-sheet, it will be apparent that there was a bias against the petitioner as although he had got highest marks in the site selection, but in the interview he has been given ‘0’ (zero) marks. He also states that on other heads also i.e. availability of loan etc., he ought to have been given higher marks as per circulars (Annexures 3 series ) of the Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited. Had the proper marks been allotted to the petitioner as per the said circulars, he would have obtained at least 86 marks and thereby he would have been placed at the top position and the dealership of the 3 said outlet would have been allotted to him. 3. Considering the averments of learned counsel for the petitioner and the materials on record, it is quite apparent that the main aspect of consideration for allotment of the said out let is the marks given in the site selection and the interview. If the calculation of those two items comes to `0’ (zero) and claimed marks are allotted on other heads, it would not be sufficient for the petitioner to get the outlet allotted in his favour. So far the site selection is concerned, marks were given after spot verification by the Committee and there is nothing to show any illegality therein. So far the number of marks obtained by the petitioner in the interview is concerned, it is `0’ (zero), which shows that the petitioner had faired very badly in the interview, which affected his weightage marks also, which is a multiplication of the marks allotted in site selection and the marks allotted in interview. Hence no defect is found in the marks given under those heads. 4. Moreover, a period of about six years has elapsed since the filing of this writ petition and according to the averments of the petitioner, Vijay Kumar Gupta (respondent no. 7) had been allotted the said outlet and has been running the same for about 6 years. 5. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court does not find any occasion to interfere in the matter and, accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. MPS/ ( S. N. Hussain, J. )