( 1 ) THE petitioner herein has challenged the panel prepared by the Dealer selection Committee for appointment of Retail Outlet Dealer of Bharat Petroleum corporation Limited (hereinafter referred to as BPCL) at or around Chanditala in Hooghly District.

( 2 ) THE said petitioner has raised various objections in respect of awarding of the marks on the basis whereof the impugned panel was prepared by the respondent Dealer Selection Committee. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the guidelines issued by BPCL for allotment of marks in respect of different categories have not been properly followed.

( 3 ) MR. Saptangsu Basu, learned Advocate of the petitioner submits that the said petitioner duly submitted the prescribed application form together with all relevant documents as required in terms of the guidelines framed by the respondent authorities herein. The said learned Advocate of the petitioner further submits that the originals of all the documents annexed with the prescribed application form were also produced before the Selection Committee at the time of interview. Mr. Basu also submits that no genuine ground was disclosed by the respondents to explain why only 5 marks were allotted to the petitioner out of total 25 marks in respect of the category "capability to Provide Finance. "

( 4 ) THE learned Advocate of the petitioner-company further submits that the Selection Committee should have allotted full 25 marks to the said petitioner-company in respect of the parameter relating to "capability to Provide Finance" for the reasons summarised hereunder: - (a) The income returns submitted for the assessment years 2002-03, 2003-04 and 2004-05 would reflect that the total income of the petitioner for assessment year 2004-05 was Rs. 11,30,260/ -. (b) Annual returns submitted by the petitioner for the financial year 2003-04 would show that the income of the petitioner for the year ended 31st March, 2004 was Rs. 49,46,611/ -. (c) The auditors report submitted by the petitioner would reveal that a sum of Rs. 18,88,222/- was standing to the credit of the petitioner in their Current Account and a sum of Rs. 85 lakhs was maintained in several fixed Deposit which as on 31st August, 2004 was worth rs. 1,24,30,448. 38p. (d) The bank statements submitted on behalf of the petitioner-company for the months of November, 2004, December, 2004 and january, 2005 would clearly show that the credit balance at the end of each of the aforesaid months was Rs. 14,18,308. 20, Rs. 1,39,31,754. 17 and Rs. 13,32,400. 31 respectively. (e) Valuation Report of the property being holding No. 20, Salkia road, Howrah, Ward No. 11, Howrah Municipal Corporation of which the petitioner was the owner would show that as on 28th December, 2004, the valuation was Rs. 10. 55 crores.

( 5 ) IT has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner-company that on the basis of the documents produced by the petitioner-company, full 12 marks should have been awarded in favour of the petitioner under the sub-category "liquid cash in the form of bank Fixed Deposits" and for the identical reasons 4 marks under the sub-category "fixed and Moveable Assets" and further 4 marks under the sub-category "income" should have also been awarded in favour of the petitioner-company.

( 6 ) REFERRING to the documents annexed with the application form submitted by the petitioner, learned Advocate of the petitioner submits that the fixed deposits of the petitioner-company as on 31st August, 2004 was rs. 1,24,30,448. 38p and therefore, following the guidelines issued by the respondent authorities, full 12 marks earmarked for the sub-category "liquid cash in the form of bank Fixed Deposits" should have been awarded in favour of the petitioner-company.

( 7 ) THE learned Advocate of the petitioner-company submits that the prescribed norms for allocation of marks on various parameters have not been followed while evaluating the candidature of the petitioner-company as according to t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document