AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
M. Jaichandren, J.—The present writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned order passed by the second Respondent, selecting the third Respondent for awarding the Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited retail outlet (petrol pump) dealership for Thottiyam area, Trichy District.
It has been stated that the Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited (hereinafter referred to as ''the Corporation'') had issued a notification in the daily newspapers, on 05.10.2009, inviting applications for awarding the retail outlet (petrol pump) dealership, for 187 locations in the various districts of the State of Tamil Nadu. In Clause 2(a)(iv) of the notification, it had been stated that those applicants, who are residing in the same Village Panchayat, in the same block or in an equivalent area are eligible for applying for the dealership, under the Rural Marketing Plan category. The applicant from the same revenue village would be awarded 20 additional marks and he would be considered, on priority basis, for awarding the dealership. In the event of the non-availability of the eligible candidates from the same revenue village, the applicant from the same village panchayat would be considered and he would be given 10 additional marks for the awarding of the dealership.
It had also been stated that those applicants, who are owning the required lands, for the setting up of the retail outlets (petrol pump), would be given more marks than those applicants, who are having lands based on mortgage or lease.
It had also been stated that the Petitioner, who is a resident of Thottiyam block of Trichy District, had made an application to the first Respondent for awarding the dealership, on 03.11.2009. The Petitioner had also enclosed a sale deed, in respect of the land, in Survey No. 264/1A, measuring 0.23.5 hectares, situated at Thottiyam Taluk, Trichy District, along with the application, dated 03.11.2009. The Petitioner is the owner of the said land.
On the contrary, the third Respondent who is a resident of Uraiyur Village, Trichy District, which is about 60 kilometers away from Thottiyam, had submitted his application, along with the rental agreement, dated 28.10.2009, entered into with one M. Selvaraj, in respect of the land, in Survey No. 258/5, having an extent of 10,000 sq. ft. Even though the Petitioner is entitled to get more marks since, he is the owner of the land, in Survey No. 264/1A, which he had offered for the setting up the retail outlet (petrol pump), the third Respondent had been selected for awarding the dealership.
The main contention of the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner is that the Petitioner had been awarded 26 marks under the category of ''capacity to provide infrastructure and facilities''. The third Respondent had also been awarded 26 marks under the said category, in spite of the fact that she had arranged to provide the land for the setting up of the retail outlet (petrol pump), based on a lease deed, dated 28.10.2009. The awarding of 26 marks to the third Respondent is in violation of Clause A of the notification issued by the Corporation, published in the daily newspapers, on 05.10.2009. Thus, the selection of the third Respondent is arbitrary, illegal and invalid in the eye of law.
In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the first Respondent, it has been stated that the selection for awarding the retail outlet (petrol pump) dealership is under the General Open Plan. It is not under the rural category, as alleged by the Petitioner. Further, the third Respondent had been awarded the marks based on the fact that the land she had offered for the setting up the retail outlet (petrol pump) was on a long lease, for a period of more than 15 years and therefore, she was eligible for the awarding of the marks, as per the terms and conditions applicable for the grant of dealership. The selection process, by which the third Respondent had been selected, is a transparent and open process. There is no question of bias in the selection of the third Respondent for awarding the dealership. The marks had been awarded, as per the documents submitted by the candidates and on personal verification by the expert committee. As such, the writ petition filed by the Petitioner is devoid of merits.
In view of the submissions made by the learned Counsels appearing on behalf of the Petitioners, as well as the Respondents, this Court is of the considered view that the Petitioner has not shown sufficient cause or reason to grant the reliefs, as prayed for by the Petitioner, in the present writ petition. The Petitioner has not been in a position to show as to how the awarding of marks, to the third Respondent, is arbitrarily or illegal. The awarding of the marks under the category of ''capacity to provide infrastructure and facilities'' had been based on the terms and conditions published for the selection and awarding of the dealership. There is nothing inconsistent in the awarding of marks to the third Respondent, since, the land offered for setting up the retail outlet (petrol pump) had been taken by the third Respondent, on a long lease, for a period of more than 15 years. As such, the writ petition filed by the Petitioner is devoid of merits and therefore, it is liable to be dismissed. Hence, it is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.