P.S.Ranakrishna Reddy v. M. K.Bhagyalakshmi and another) and
Legal Reasoning
HON’BLE MR JUSTICE BK SHARMA The matter relates to allotment of dealership for diesel Retail Outlet by the In dian Oil Corporation Ltd. The petitioner is aggrieved by grant of dealership to the respondent No.8. According to the petitioner the said respondent No.8 being not eligible in terms of the advertisement dated 6.8.2006 and 29.9.2006 as well as the brochu re dated 1.11.2004 regarding selection of (cid:28)Petrol/Diesel Outlet Dealers (cid:29) issued by Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., her candidature ought to have been rejected. According to the petitioner the land offered by the respondent No. 8 doe s not fulfil the conditions stipulated in the guidelines as the same is surround ed by the religious institutions, primary schools as well as dwelling houses. Th e petitioner has also questioned the ownership of the land with the allegation o f suppression of material fact in submitting the land documents by the responden t No.8.It has been alleged that respondent No.8 has been allotted dealership ill egally in flagrant violation of selection procedure requiring judicial scrutiny of the matter.
Legal Reasoning
I have heard Mr. D. C. Kath Hazarika, learned counsel for the petitioner and I have also heard Mr. M. K. Choudhury, learned Standing Counsel, I.O.C assi sted by Mr. N. Barua learned counsel representing the respondent Corporation. Mr . S. K. Medhi, learned counsel for respondent No.8 has made his submission refer ring to the decisions reported in (2007)10 SCC 231, (P.S.Ranakrishna Reddy Vs M. K.Bhagyalakshmi and another) and (2008) 2 SCC 161(Jitendra Kumar and others Vs State of Haryana and another ). Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that this Court exercising its writ jurisdiction should interfere with the deci sion of the selection committee by which the respondent No.8 has been selected i nspite of her lacking the required eligibility. Countering the above arguments Mr.Choudhury, learned Standing Counsel, I OC Ltd has submitted that this Court exercising its power of judicial review und er Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot make a roving enquiry in resp ect of the disputed questions of fact raised by the petitioner. He also submits that IOC Ltd having selected the respondent No. 8 as suitable candidate for the dealership through the expert opinion of the selection committee constituted for the purpose, this Court will not sit on appeal over such finding of the selecti on committee. As regards the lease agreement about which much have been emphasised, referring to the records he has produced, Mr.Choudhury submits that although respondent N o.8 has submitted lease agreement with the duration of 10 years as against the r equirement of 19 years 11 months but later on the said defect was removed well ahead of submission last date of applications. He submits that by submitting sub sequent lease agreement the requirement of period of 19 years 11 months was comp lied with. Mr.S.K.Medhi, learned counsel representing the respondent No.8 submits t hat the expert body appointed by the IOC Ltd. had gone through the materials on record adopting the laid down procedure and thus the decision arrived at by the said expert body cannot be interfered with exercising writ jurisdiction. He als o submits that whatsoever is strong the case of the petitioner might be, but the same being merely on the basis of conjectures and surmises and also on suspicio n, this Court without any complete materials to substantiate the same cannot int erfere with the selection made in favour of the respondent No.8. I have given my anxious consideration to the submission of the learned c ounsel for the parties and I have also perused the entire materials on record in cluding the file that has been produced by Mr.Borua, learned counsel assisting Mr.M.K.Choudhury, learned Standing Counsel, I.O.C ltd. As regards the allegation of the land being surrounded by religious inst itutions, educational institutions and dwelling houses, the respondents have den ied the same in the counter affidavit. It will have to be borne in mind that the department of Explosives is required to issue a licence to the settlement holde r upon the site verification etc. In case of any deficiency, the said department cannot issue licence. In the instant case the respondent No.8 had been issued w ith the licence by the said department upon spot verification etc. Thus the lice nce having been issued by none other than by the Explosive department, it has to be presumed that the required safety measures are available in respect of the l and, in question. As regards the claim of the petitioner that there is no specification of boundaries in the description of the land of the respondent No.8, suffice it to say that if the land is identifiable without any specification of the bounda ry on the basis of other particulars coupled with the field verification, the s ettlement cannot be said to be illegal on that ground. It will be pertinent to m ention that upon selection of respondent No.8, she has installed retail outlet a nd has been running the same for the last 6/7 years without any complaint whatso ever from any corner. Much have been emphasised on procuring of land by the respondent No.8 af ter the settlement was made in her favour. It is submitted that the land that wa s purchased later on has been utilised for wider approach to the retail outlet. It is also submitted that even if the said plot of land had not been purchased t hen also on the basis of the land, the respondent No.8 had been chosen for allot ment of the retail outlet, would have been sufficient. In response to the advertisement for the retail outlet candidatures had been offered by the candidates including the petitioner and the respondent No.8. Upon scrutiny of the same and undertaking the process of selection taking note of various guidelines and parameters, the expert committee having selected the r espondent No.8, this Court exercising its writ jurisdiction cannot sit on appeal over the expert opinion. Even if there is some variation here and there, it i s for the expert body to take note of the same. It is on over all consideration of the matter, and applying various parameters the respondent No.8, had been sel ected.
Decision
Above being the position, I do not find any merit in the writ petition a nd accordingly, it is dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.