IMPORTANT POINT
An unsuccessful candidate has no right to challenge the selection of another without establishing their own eligibility and violation of Article 14 of the Constitution.

JUDGMENT :

PARTHA SARATHI SEN, J.

1. In this appeal the Order dated March 14, 2019 as passed in WP No. 14441 (W) of 2018 as passed by the learned Single Judge has been assailed by the appellant who was the writ petitioner before the Writ Court. By the impugned order learned Single Judge considered the subsequent report of BL&LRO regarding location of the proposed showroom of the private respondent no. 9 and found no infirmity in the action of the respondent no. 2/Oil Company and thus dismissed the said writ petition.

2. In support of the instant appeal learned advocate for the writ petitioner/appellant at the very outset submits before this Court that though the present appellant was initially selected for draw of selection of the LPG Distributorship but subsequently the writ petitioner/appellant was found to be disqualified. It has been contended further that from a reliable source the writ petitioner/appellant came to learn that the private respondent no. 9 also failed to fulfill the criteria for obtaining LPG Distributorship and accordingly the candidature of the private respondent no. 9 was cancelled. However in a clandestine manner the private respondent no. 9 was again selected despite the protest raised by the writ petitioner/appellant pointing out the discrepancies regarding the location of the showroom of the private respondent no. 7.

3. Drawing attention to page nos. 54 and 54A of CAN No. 4654 of 2019 it has been submitted on behalf of the writ petitioner/appellant that the respondent no. 2 made a communication dated 28.11.2016 with the respondent no. 7 wherein the respondent no. 7 categorically stated that the proposed land for showroom of the private respondent no. 7 is not in the advertised location, Baisnabnagar. It is argued further that all on a sudden the respondent no. 2/Oil Company relied on a certificate dated 10.04.2018 purportedly issued by the BL&LRO, Kaliachak, Malda and thus granted the said LPG Dealership to the writ petitioner in utter violation of the guidelines for selection of regular LPG Distributorships.

4. Drawing attention to Clause 10(ii) of Guidelines for Selection of Regular LPG Distributorships it is argued that a redraw is required to be done in the event a selected candidate’s candidature is found to be rejected during the field verification. It is thus argued that for not doing the redraw and for allotting LPG Distributorship to the private respondent no. 7 in contravention of the provisions of the aforementioned guidelines the learned Single Judge ought to have issued a writ directing the respondent no. 2/Oil Company to revoke the license of the private respondent no. 7. Learned advocate for the appellant thus submits that it is a fit case for allowing the instant appeal by setting aside the impugned order.

5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no. 2/Oil Company submits before this Court that since in his writ petition the writ petitioner has prayed for negative prayers, learned Single Judge is very much justified in rejecting the petitioner’s writ petition. Learned counsel for the respondent no. 2/Oil Company has placed his reliance upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court namely: Fuljit Kaur vs. State of Punjab and Others, (2010) 11 SCC 455.

6. Learned counsel for the respondent no. 3 submits further that admittedly in course of field verification of the land offered by the respondent no. 7 it was found that the offered land for showroom was not in the advertised locations and for the said reason the candidature of the private respondent no. 7 was initially cancelled. However, while considering the representation made by the private respondent no. 7 the respondent no. 2/ Oil Company took up the matter with the District Magistrate, Malda and on receipt of the certificate bearing memo no. BL&LRO/KCK-iii/144 dated 10.04.2018 it reveals that the offered land by the private respondent no. 7 is situated within Baishabnagar location Malda i.e. in the location as mention