An applicant cannot challenge the classification of a Retail Outlet after applying for it, especially when aware of their ineligibility based on category reservations.

-

ORDER :

Suraj Govindaraj, J.

1. The petitioner is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs:

i. To issue a writ of certiorari quashing of the Cancellation of Candidature letter dated 15.02.2019 sent by the Respondent No.3 produced herewith as Annexure-A and Annexure-W, the No Objection Certificate dated 16.03.2022 bearing No.ARM(3)CR 56/2019/E-76044/C3 to the petition, and for a Writ of Mandamus seeking direction on the Respondents to cancel the whole selection process for dealership and call for fresh process by changing Regular RO to Rural RO and the category from SC to open at Bellare leaving opportunity to the petitioner for filing fresh application seeking candidature, and for such other and further relief in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity.

2. The petitioner claims to be an engineering graduate and the owner of some of the properties, which he acquired under family partition dated 03.06.2015, which has resulted in his severance from the family status. Pursuant to which he claims that he has no connection with his earlier family.

-

3. The petitioner being interested in setting up of a Retail Outlet (‘RO’ for short) for selling petrol, diesel and gas with the dealership of respondent, the Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited (hereinafter referred to as ‘BPCL’ for brevity), when the respondent-BPCL had called for candidates for such dealership of Regular as well as Rural Retail outlet in an advertisement, which has been published by BPCL on 25.11.2018, an application was submitted by the petitioner on 11-12-2018.

4. In terms of the advertisement, the petitioner had submitted his application for the location Bellare of Dakshina Kannada District, shown at Sl.No.51 to the advertisement. The type of Retail Outlet being Regular and the same was reserved for a person belonging to scheduled caste category.

5. Acting upon the said application, the respondent-BPCL considering that there was no other applicant, did not go on with the ‘draw of lots’ and declared the petitioner to be selected for the said Retail Outlet vide its letter dated 11.01.2019. By another email dated 11.01.2019, the petitioner was called upon to remit a sum of Rs.30,000/- through online mode towards the initial security deposit as also to submit the set of documents as specified therein including the eligibility certificate for scheduled caste category, after which the verification of all attested photocopies would be done with the original documents during the field verification of credentials. The petitioner was categorically informed that his candidature would be cancelled in case the initial security deposit is not remitted or the documents listed in the said email were not submitted within 10 days from the date of the intimation.

-

6. On 14.01.2019, the petitioner submitted some of the documents; however, despite having been called upon to furnish the category certificate for scheduled caste, the same was not furnished. Thereafter, the petitioner, vide his letter dated 18.01.2019, had contended that his land at Bellare did not meet the norms prescribed for Regular RO, and it is after clearance of the said doubt that he would make payment of the initial security deposit, though again no reference was made to the document to be submitted.

-

7. Vide email dated 07.02.2019, the respondent, BPCL, informed the petitioner that the initial security deposit not having been paid, his candidature stood cancelled. The petitioner, by way of another letter dated 12.02.2019, had contended that the clarification not having been issued, his application cannot be cancelled, nor his candidature rejected, and until such clarification is issued, he cannot pay the security deposit.

8. The petitioner thereafter filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005, seeking location details of proposed retail outlets at Bellare and the same was rejected by the CPIO on the grounds that the third-party personal information would