Case: Devidas Rama Chari Vs. S Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited

( 2 ) BRIEFLY stated, respondent No. 1 (company for short) published an advertisement on or aboutseeking applications from eligible persons for being appointed as a dealer as per eligibility criteria prescribed therein. Although the petitioner claims to have land in Village Shiroda, the petitioner did not respond to the said advertisement. Respondent No. 3 did respond and so did many3 ) SUBSEQUENTLY, the Oil Selection board which, we are told, was presided over by a retired High Court Judge at the relevant time, short listed respondent No. 3 and 2005 (1) ALL MRFeb. respondent No. 3 was issued with a letter of intent datedAs per the said letter of intent, respondent No. 3 was required to arrange for a suitable plot of 50 x 50 metres at Shiroda on PondaSanvordem road within a period of four months and was also required to comply with other conditions. Respondent No. 3 went on representing to the Company that he was unable to find a suitable plot within Shiroda village, as per the said advertisement and finally submitted a letter from the grampanchayat of Shiroda, datedcertifying that a plot was not available for the purpose of setting up a petrol pump/retail outlet at Shiroda. Respondent No. 3 also represented that a plot was available at a nearby location at borim. This proposal of respondent No. 3 was subsequently put up before a committee consisting of the representatives of the industry which, at its meeting, held onwas pleased to approve the site at Borim and, subsequently, at the new site at Borim, the said petrol pump/retail outlet came to be commissioned onPrior to that, at the instance of respondent No. 3, the Additional district Magistrate, Panaji by a Public Notice in Official Gazette datedand gomantak Times and sunaprant dailies, datedsought objections from the interested persons against the setting up of the said petrol pump at Borim. None objected. 4. The said allotment of the petrol pump in favour of respondent No. 3 by the company is sought to be assailed by the petitioner as being arbitrary, as not complying with the very guidelines issued by the Company for allotment and/or location of the petrol pump/retail outlets. A copy of the said guidelines known as "volume/distance norms FOR SETTING UP RETAIL outlets" have been produced. The relevant guideline reads as follows :"c. Locations which meet V/d norms and where there is no response to advertisement/ no eligible candidate/suitable land not being available. Dealership must be advertised at least twice. One advertisement released should be under the revised guidelines. NOTE : All substitute locations in lieu of dropped locations, must be in the same s. O. C. /class of market in the same State is permissible after Industry Members concurrence at SLC level that no location meeting V/d norms is available in the same class of market as that of the "dropped" location. All substitute locations must be concurred at SLC level by all Industry Members for inclusion in a Market Plan/supplementary. Advertisements for substitute locations can be released only after these are included in a subsequent Marketing Plan/ supplementary. "

Reasoning:
In our opinion, within the same constituency there may have been different places which could be within the municipal areas as well as outside such limits and also there could have been places which were more commercially viable than others. The same could be said in relation to the saidroad. Considering the guidelines, to which reference has been made, we are of the prima facie view that the company was required toat least twice in case no suitable place was available in Shiroda. The location at Shiroda, which was advertised, has to be considered as a location within the area comprising of Village Panchayat of Shiroda, because there is a certificate from the Village Panchayat, which was produced by respondent No. 3 in support of his plea that there was no place available to set up the said petrol pump at5 ) WE are of the view that the action of the Company has got to be considered as arbitrary because the Company has not followed its own guidelines. For the sake of transparency, in public action the Company was required, even after Industry Members concurred regarding the change in location, to advertise again and call for fresh applications for dealership, since the location was admittedly changed from one Village to another and at a place which was more advantageously situated. Nevertheless, we are of the view, considering the facts of this case and gross delay and laches on the part of the petitioner, that it will be inequitable to grant any relief in favour of the petitioner as against respondent no.7 ) AS already stated, the petitioner has not at all explained the delay of almost four years in approaching this Court with this petition, which is again in the nature of a public interest litigation because it is not the case of the petitioner that he did apply for the dealership of setting up the petrol pump, when it was advertised for Shiroda Village or for that matter he was capable of arranging any land at borim Village to set up the same. The petitioner has also not stated that he was not aware that the petrol pump was commissional onat Borim. Admittedly, the petrol pump was set up at the instance of respondent No. 3 at the junction of two roads at16 ) ON behalf of the petitioner, no effort has been made to persuade us to take a contrary view to the view held by the Division bench of this Court in the case of Bajaj Auto ltd. and ors. Vs. The Union of India and ors. (supra ). We too have no reason not to follow the same. In the circumstances, the petitioners contention that once the petition is admitted, the same has got to be decide on merits, cannot be17 ) IN view of the above, we are not at all inclined to interfere with the decision of the Company in allotting the said petrol pump/ retail outlet in favour of respondent No. 3.