Arbitrariness, illegality, and irrationality in the decision-making process of a government entity, and the application of Article 15(3) of the Constitution for special provisions for women.

JUDGMENT :

DIPANKAR DATTA, J.

1. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. (hereafter “BPCL” for short), by issuing an advertisement dated 25-11-2018, had invited applications from eligible candidates interested to obtain allotment of dealership for retail outlets (petrol pumps) at several locations across Maharashtra. One of such locations was indicated in the advertisement as follows:

2. The petitioner belongs to a Scheduled Caste community (SC). She also has visual impairment to the extent of 40 % and has been certified by the Government of Maharashtra as a physically handicapped candidate (PH). Aspiring for the dealership in question, the petitioner had offered her candidature by applying in the prescribed format on 21-12-2018. In course of draw of lots, which was the mode of selection, the petitioner had to compete with 5 (five) others. Fortune smiled on the petitioner. At the draw of lots, she was successful. Vide e-mail dated 27-11-2019, the petitioner was informed of her selection for the subject dealership. Having been called upon, the petitioner on 07-11-2019 deposited a sum of Rs.30,000/- pursuant whereto spot inspection of the site offered by her was conducted. Thereafter, her status was shown on the official website of BPCL as “selected”. The Territory Manager (Retail), Manmad of BPCL by his communication dated 07-11-2019 requested the Caste Verification Scrutiny Committee, Pachora to verify the caste certificate of the petitioner to facilitate submission by her of the certificate of validity. The petitioner was issued a certificate of validity of caste dated 10-12-2019 by the Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Jalgaon which she submitted immediately thereafter. This was allegedly followed by several oral representations by the petitioner to BPCL for allotment of the retail outlet dealership by issuing Letter of Intent (LoI) in view of her selection. However, since such oral representations did not yield any result, the petitioner through her advocate sent a legal notice dated 07-12-2021, calling upon the Territory Manager (Retail) BPCL, Manmad to proceed for allotment of the retail outlet in her favour. The legal notice too did not evoke any response, prompting the petitioner to invoke the writ jurisdiction of this Court on 17-01-2022 seeking inter alia the following relief:

“(C) This Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue appropriate writ, order or directions to the respondents to issue the retail outlet dealership at SH4 from Amalner to Chopda RSH within 5KMS of Amalner, in pursuance to advertisement dated 25.11.2018 within stipulated period.

In the alternative

(D) This Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue appropriate writ, order or directions to the respondents to issue the retail outlet dealership at any suitable place in the Jalgaon district within stipulated period.

(E) This Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue appropriate writ, order or directions to the respondents to compensate the loss caused to the petitioner for not allotting the retail outlet dealership at SH4 from Amalner to Chopda RSH within 5KMS of Amalner, in reasonable period by directing the respondents to paying an amount of Rs.10,00,000/- towards compensation.”

3. An affidavit-in-reply of the respondents 1 and 2 [BPCL through Territory Manager (Retail), Manmad and the Area Manager, BPCL, Jalgaon Division, Jalgaon], is on record. The facts pleaded in the writ petition about the petitioner’s selection are not disputed. However, paragraphs 5, 6 and 7 of the said affidavit are relevant and hence quoted hereunder:

“05. I say that, as per procedure mentioned above, answering respondent has advertised location ‘On SH4 from Amalner to Chopada RHS w