The court held that the IOC's decision to allot the dealership to the respondent No. 5 was mala fide and in violation of its own policy decision, that the IOC's action in procuring land on behalf of the respondent No. 5 was unauthorized and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, and that the IOC's failure to follow the procedure laid down in the Manual for Selection of Dealers and Distributors was illegal.

The petitioner bas filed the aforementioned writ application claiming, inter alia, the following reliefs :-

"(a) A Writ of Mandamus or a writ in the nature thereof commanding the respondents to act and proceed in accordance who law directing the respondent authority to allot dealership of Retail outlet at Digha in favour of the petitioner-society by giving preference to the petitioner in relation to unemployed Graduate individual person as per conditions and promises made in the Advertisement published in the Ananda Bazar Patrika on 30.10.1995 by (Marketing Division). Eastern Region, within a specified period as may be specified by this Hon'ble Court ;

(b) A Writ of Certiorari or a writ in the nature thereof requiring the respondents to certify and transmit all records of the instant case so that conscionable Justice may be rend, red by cancelling the proposal for allotment of Dealership for the establishment of Retail outlet of Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. at Digha in favour of the respondent No. 6 as per the Advertisement published by the said Company in the Ananda Bazar Patrika dated 30th October, 1995."

2. The fact of the matter is not much in dispute. Pursuant to an advertisement the petitioner as also the respondent No. 5 submitted tenders for allotment of Retail-outlet dealership within P. S. Digha. As per the notice inviting tender all things been equal, preference was to be given to a Consumer Co-operative Society. The petitioner contends as it was the only Consumer Co-operative Society, the Oil Selection Board committed a mistake in preparing a panel consisting of the respondent No. 5 and the petitioner.

3. Admittedly the land which was offered by the respondent No. 5 for installation of the petrol pump was not approved by the Indian Oil Corporation. Indian Oil Corporation, however, obtained lands from Digha Development Authority in terms of an indenture dated 25.2.1997. It has further been stated that the site of the said proposed pump is violative of Clause 41 of the recommendations issued by the Indian Roads Congress entitled Recommended Practice for Location and Layout of Roadside Motor Fuel Filling and Motor Fuel Filling cum service stations; in terms whereof a clear distance between two adjacent fuelling stations of not less than 300 meters should be maintained.

4. Mr. Sircar. learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the private respondent, however, submitted that the petitioner is not a Consumer Co-operative Society and, thus, it has not locus to file the impugned writ application. The learned Counsel submits that the question of selection of a person fit to be granted a Retail outlet dealership having been entrusted to the Oil Selection Board, this Court should not interfere in the matter. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Indian Oil Corporation and the Oil Selection Board submitted that the petitioner has merely a right to a preferential treatment only when both the parties are found equal in all other respects. It was submitted that in the Manual for Selection of Dealers and Distributors published by the Respondent-Corporation it has been laid down that extension of the validity of the time limit relating to offer of site for installation of fuel filling station may be allowed by the competent authority in suitable cases, i.e. beyond a period of 9 months. The respondent No. 5 arranged and gave inspection of site to the Indian Oil Corporation which was not approved whereafter, for the benefit of the consumers, the private respondent was advised to provide a suitable site at New Digha area. As no private land was available at New Digba, the Indian Oil Corporation approached the Digba Development Authority and a plot of land was arranged for the respondent No.5 and extension of time for the said purpose was also allowed.

5. The notice inviting tender as contained in Annexure “B” to the writ application which was published in Ananda Bazar Patrika on 30.10.1995 clearly states that the proposal for th