Prasana Kumar Vashistha vs Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. and Others

Rajendra Menon, J.

Challenging the allotment of L.P.G. distributorship made in favour of respondent no. 6 petitioner has filed this petition.

Respondents M/s Indian Oil Corporation published a general notice in various new papers on 13/09/2000 vide Annexure P/1 inviting applications from eligible persons who are Indian nationals between the age of 21 to 60 having education up to Matriculation and resident of the District where the distributorship was to be granted, further stipulation in the notice were with regard to actual income of the family and no close relation having distributorship. Candidates who fulfilled the aforesaid criteria could apply for grant of dealership, accordingly petitioner so also respondent no. 6 applied for grant of dealership in District Datia which is one of the District notified in the advertisement, interview were held by Dealer Selection Board and grievance of the petitioner is that even though he was qualified and more suitable than respondent no. 6, dealership has been granted to respondent No. 6 contrary to the stipulation contained in the notice, Annexure P/1. Inter alia contending that respondent No. 6 is not a resident of District Datia he is resident of Tahsil Konch District Jalon in Uttar Pradesh and he does not possess any land in the District Datia objection were raised by the petitioner. It was the case of the petitioner what he owns land in District Datia in Survey No. 367, 368/1,374/4 measuring area of 1.254 hect., he is local resident of District Datia and ignoring his claim granting dealership to respondent no. 6 who neither has any land or property in District Datia nor is the local resident of District Datia is illegal. Complaint filed by petitioner were forwarded by the Indian Oil Corporation to the Dealer Selection Board for enquiry and grievance of the petitioner is that inspite of the fact that he had produced evidence and material to show that respondent no. 6 is not resident of District Datia, his complaint has not been considered properly and ignoring his objection, dealership granted to respondent no. 6 is unsustainable.

Refuting the contention raised by the petitioner Shri N.K. Jain learned counsel representing Indian Oil Corporation argued that when the petitioner raised and found that respondent no. 6 is resident of District Datia and was entitled to get the dealership, accordingly order annexure R/3 was passed on 26-04-01 by the Dealer Selection Board after conducting proper enquiry in to the complaint submitted by the petitioner. Respondent no. 6 has filed a separate return and by filing various documents including the identity card issued by election commission, ration card and the certificate issued by Tahsildar has tried to demonstrate that he is a resident of District Datia and the dealership has been allotted to him in accordance with law.

During the course of hearing Shri N.K. Jain and Shri S.K. Jain counsel representing respondents argued that in the facts and circumstances of the case as there is no malafide pleaded or established, as the dispute is only with regard residence of to respondent no. 6 the same has enquired in to no relief can be granted in this petition. Senior counsel submitted that the finding recorded by Dealer Selection Board is just and reasonable finding and does not call for any interference in this petition.

I have heard learned counsel for parties and perused the record. Condition no. 1 and 2 as stipulated in the notice Annexure A/1 indicates that the candidate filing the application is required to be Indian Citizen between the age of 21 to 60 years, he should be matriculation and no other persons in the family should be having dealership in LPG. The condition further stipulated is that preference shall be given to such of the candidates who possess property in the area and preference also will be given to local resident of District where the distributorship is to be granted. In pursuance to the advertisement issued, records indicate that 39 applications were received by the Dealer Selection Board all the applications were scrutinized and the Dealer Selection Board prepared list of three candidates as per merit on 8-3-01 vide annexure R/1 for location Datia. In the said list respondent no. 6 Vijay Pratap Singh was placed at serial no. 1 and petitioner was placed at serial no. 2. Records further indicates that out of 39 persons who had submitted applications, 33 persons appeared for the interview and the 3 candidates selected on merit where out of the 33 candidates who had appeared in the interview. After the merit list was published it is seen that petitioner submitted a complaint and grievance of the petitioner in the complaint was that respondent no. 6 is not a resident of District Datia but he is resident of Village Nadigaon, Tahsil Konch, District Jalon (Uttar Pradesh). In support of the aforesaid he submitted some voter list of Nagar Panchayat Konch District Jalon of the year 2000 to show that name of the respondent no. 6 is indicated in the said voter list. When the aforesaid complaint was received by the Indian Oil Corporation, the same was forwarded to the Dealer Selection Board, Dealer Selection Board issued notice to Shri Vijay Pratap Singh respondent no. 6 and the petitioner and also issued notice to the office of Tahsildar Datia, who had issued the residential certificate indicating the Shri Vijay Pratap Singh respondent no. 6 is resident of District Datia. Apart from the aforesaid respondent no. 6 submitted voter list issued from the office of Collector Datia for the year 1993, 1995 and 1999, in which the name of respondent no. 6 is entered as a voter in ward no. 27 Bharatgarh, Datia. Identity card issued by Election Commission of India was also produced by respondent no. 6 registering him at serial no. 023 of Datia constituency. Apart from these documents respondent no. 6 also produced a family card issued by Municipal Council Datia, showing him to be a resident of Datia he also produced appointment letter issued by his employer and also employment card issued by Employment Officer Datia to show that he is resident of District Datia, after considering all these documents the Chairman of the Dealer Selection Board No. 2 Bhopal passed a detailed speaking order, rejecting the complaint submitted by petitioner. From the record it is seen that the Dealer Selection Board had conducted a detailed enquiry into the matter and the matter was decided after hearing the petitioner so also respondent no. 6.

The finding recorded by the Dealer Selection Board with regard to residence of respondent no. 6 is a finding of fact reasonable arrived at after considering relevant material placed before it, that being so there is no force in the arguments advanced on behalf of petitioner to the effect that respondent no. 6 is not a resident of Datia. As far as availability of land by respondent no. 6 in District Datia is concerned this consideration is not mandatory in nature it is only directory in nature and the records indicated that the decision has been taken by Selection Board and the Company concerned in the light of Annexure R/2 issued to respondent no. 6 wherein adequate safeguard and direction have been issued for the purpose of suitable plot of land for carrying out dealership to be granted in pursuance to the notification Annexure P/1, it is pointed out by Shri N.K. Jain that in pursuance to the aforesaid respondent no. 6 has fulfilled the condition for making available suitable land and that being so merely on the ground that petitioner has various land in the District Datia, this Court does not deem it proper to interfere in the matter.

In matters pertaining to appointment of the dealer and grant of license for carrying out business activities interference can be made by this Court exercising jurisdiction in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution in case it is found that grant of dealership is made in violation of any statutory provision or the grant made is vitiated by malafide, arbitrariness or other external consideration being made by persons responsible for grant of dealership. In the present case it is not the case of the petitioner that the grant made to the respondent no. 6 is vitiated by malafide nor is any bias, prejudice or arbitrariness pleaded or established against the Dealer Selection Board or any of its members, that being so this Court cannot sit over the decision of the Dealer Selection Board as if it is exercising appellate jurisdiction, it is the Dealer Selection Board which has conducted the interview and has taken a decision after evaluating the applications submitted by various persons and in the absence of any material produced by the petitioner to demonstrate that the decision taken by Dealer Selection Board is illegal or unsustainable no interference can be made by this court. Having considered the fact and circumstances of the case this court does not find any infirmity in the procedure followed for grant of dealership to respondent no. 6.

Accordingly in the facts and circumstances of the case I find no ground to interfere in the matter, petition stands dismissed without any order as to cost.