Rajender Kumar vs The Union of India and Others

Sangeet Lodha, J.—By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has questioned the legality of order dated 11.7.14 issued by the Territory Manager, Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited (BPCL), Bikaner, whereby the candidature of the petitioner for award of LPG Distributorship at Nohar, stands rejected on the ground that the amount mentioned in application form under column 11 in the Saving Bank Account in Mini Bank Deidas GSS Limited is not in conformity with clause No. 6.1 of the Brochure for selection of Regular LPG Distributorship, inasmuch as, the said Bank is not a Scheduled Bank.

The oil companies issued an advertisement dated 21.9.13 for allotment of LPG Distributorship for various locations in the State of Rajasthan. The petitioner applied for allotment of Distributorship for location Nohar. Vide communication dated 1.2.14, issued by the Territory Manager, BPCL, Bikaner, the petitioner was informed that he has qualified for draw for award of LPG Distributorship. The draw was conducted on 25.2.14 wherein the petitioner was selected and therefore, vide communication dated 26.2.14, the petitioner was advised to deposit an amount of Rs. 25,000/- through a demand draft in favour of BPCL payable at Bikaner. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner tendered the demand draft of Rs. 25,000/- on 28.2.14. However, vide order impugned dated 11.7.14, the candidature of the petitioner has been rejected by the respondent-BPCL on the ground that amount mentioned in the application preferred by the petitioner in the Saving Bank Account in Mini Bank Deidas GSS Limited does not satisfy the requirement in terms of clause 6.1 of the Brochure for Selection of Regular LPG Distributorship inasmuch as, the said Bank is not a Scheduled Bank. Hence, this petition.

Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the Mini Bank Deidas is operating the banking business under the Hanumangarh Central Cooperative Bank Limited, registered under the Rajasthan Cooperative Societies Act, 2001, which is engaged in banking business under the license issued by the Reserve Bank of India. It is submitted that Hanumangarh Central Cooperative Bank Limited, Hanumangarh is a member of State Cooperative Bank Limited which is a Scheduled Bank and therefore, the rejection of the candidature of the petitioner in terms of clause 6.1 of the Brochure, is ex facie erroneous.

On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that Mini Bank Deidas GSS Limited may be associated with the Hanumangarh Central Cooperative Bank, which is affiliated to Rajasthan State Cooperative Bank but then, the fact remains that the Mini Bank cannot be considered to be a Scheduled Bank and therefore, the candidature of the petitioner who does not fulfill the eligibility criteria in terms of clause 6.1 of the Brochure has rightly been rejected. Learned counsel submitted that the guidelines governing the process of selection has to be strictly followed and if the norms of eligibility are not satisfied, the candidature of the applicant is bound to be rejected. In support of the contention, learned counsel has relied upon a Bench decision of this court in the matter of "Indian Oil Corporation Limited v. Shyam Sunder" (D.B. Civil Special Appeal (W) No. 390/12, decided on 4.3.13).

I have considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record.

The controversy raised rolls around clause 6.1 of the Brochure for Selection of Regular LPG Distributorship, which reads as under:

"VI. Have minimum total amount of Rs. 15 lakhs for Urban Markets and Rs. 10 lakhs for Urban-Rural and Rural Markets respectively as the closing balance on the last date for submission of application as specified in the advertisement or corrigendum (if any). This amount is to be arrived at by the adding amount in Savings Bank accounts in Scheduled Bank/Post Office, free and unencumbered Fixed Deposits in Scheduled Banks, Post Office, Listed Companies/Government Organisation/Public Sector Undertaking of State and Central Government, Kisan Vikas Patra, NSC, Bonds, Shares of Listed Companies, Listed Mutual Funds, ULIP, PPF, Surrender Value of Life Insurance policies in the name of Applicant or family members of the ''Family Unit'' of the Applicant as defined above. In case of locations reserved under ''SC/ST'' category, minimum total amount of Rs. 5 lakhs for Urban Markets and Rs. 2.5 lakhs for Urban-Rural and Rural and Rural Markets respectively should be available as the closing balance on the last date for submission of application as specified in the advertisement or corrigendum (if any)." 7. Indisputably, as per clause 6.1, the candidate must have minimum total amount of Rs. 15 lacs for Urban markets and Rs. 10 lacs for Urban-Rural and Rural markets respectively as closing balance on the last date for application as specified in the advertisement or corrigendum, if any. The said amount is to be arrived at by adding amount in Saving Banks in Scheduled Bank/Post Office, Free and Unencumbered Fixed Deposits in Scheduled Banks/Post Office or in other Undertakings/Schemes, as specified. It is not in dispute that the petitioner had disclosed in the column No. 11 of the application that he is having closing balance of more than Rs. 10 lacs in Mini Bank Deidas GSS Limited, a society registered under the Rajasthan Cooperative Societies Act, 2001. It is not even the case of the petitioner that the said society is a Scheduled Bank as specified under the provisions of Banking Regulation Act, 1949. Merely because, the petitioner society is affiliated with Hanumangarh Central Cooperative Bank Limited, which is affiliated with the State Cooperative Bank Ltd., a Scheduled Bank, in no manner, the Mini Bank Deidas GSS Limited, could be treated to be a Scheduled Bank.

In considered opinion of this court, the financial capability of a person to run the Distributorship is a relevant factor to be considered while making the allotment and therefore, the requirement of minimum liquidity prescribed by the BPCL must be in conformity with clause 6.1 of the Brochure for selection of LPG Distributorship. Suffice it to say that so to maintain the transparency and fairness in the allotment process, the eligibility criteria laid down has to be adhered to strictly. As discussed hereinabove, the petitioner does not satisfy the criteria laid down under clause 6.1 regarding the financial capacity and therefore, the rejection of the candidature of the petitioner by the BPCL does not suffer from infirmity or illegality so as to warrant interference by this court in exercise of its extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

In the result, the petition fails, it is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.