The court upheld the selection process of a retail outlet dealership as valid, emphasizing adherence to guidelines and the discretion of the Corporation unless proven arbitrary.

JUDGMENT :

A.S. SUPEHIA, J.

RULE. Learned Advocate Mr.Bhatt appearing for the respondent no.1, learned Advocate Mr.Shah for respondent no.2 and learned Advocate Mr.Gamara, for respondent no.3 waive service of notice of rule. With the consent of learned advocates appearing for the respective parties, the matter is taken up for hearing.

2. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner assailing the action of the respondent no.1 – HPCL (for short “the Corporation”) and it is prayed that selection of respondent No.2 for allotment of Retail Outlet Dealership in open category on Piplaj By pass Road, starting and ending on Ahmedabad Dholka Highway (Piplaj Pirana Road), finalized by Respondent No.1-Corporation may be quashed and set aside.

BRIEF FACTS :

3. Pursuant to an advertisement issued by the respondent No.1- Corporation on 28-06-2023 in Gujarat Samachar, Ahmedabad Edition, the petitioner on 18-07-2023, Vide Application No. HPCL 6894177988439 applied for the allotment of Retail Outlet Dealership in Open Category for the location named "On Pilpaj By pass Road, Starting and Ending on Ahmedabad - Dholka Highway (Piplaj - Pirana Road).

4. For the purpose of selection of dealer for the concerned retail outlet, the selection procedure is made through the draw of lots /bidding process as per the guidelines on selection of dealers for regular and rural retail outlets framed by the consortium of three Oil Companies, one of them being respondent no.1-Corporation.

5. In response to the application made by the petitioner seeking allotment of dealership of retail outlet, respondent No.1-Corporation sent an email to the petitioner for attending draw of lots / bidding process to be held on 15-12-2023 at IIM, Ahmedabad. On the day of draw of lots/ bidding process, it was noticed that there were two other applicants seeking allotment of dealership of retail outlet in respect of the same location bearing Application No.HPCL 6896023520326 preferred by Respondent No. 2 and Application bearing No. HPCL 6891699023407 preferred by Respondent No. 3.

6. It is the case of the petitioner that pursuant to the draw held by Respondent No.1-Corporation, it was orally informed that Respondent No. 2 is selected in the draw of lots / bidding process for the Retail Outlet Dealership, wherein the provisional allotment was given to the Respondent No. 2 as per the draw system, which is absolutely in contravention and violation of the terms and conditions, as stated in the Brochure of Selection of Dealers For Regular & Rural Retail Outlets, June 2023, issued by the consortium of Oil Companies including Respondent No. 1 through the draw of lots / bidding process.

SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER :

7. Learned Advocate Mr.Vyas appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner came to know that respondent nos.2 and 3 are the father-in-law and daughter-in-law respectively and they have applied for the Retail Outlet Dealership offering non-agricultural land being Block / Survey No.9/2, Mouje Village Piplaj, Tal. Vatva, Dist: Ahmedabad and immediately the petitioner agitated the same. It is submitted that the petitioner has also filed necessary RTI application seeking details of the documents in regards to respondents no.2 and 3 and the issue with regard to supply of necessary information is still pending consideration before the appropriate forum.

8. At the outset, learned advocate Mr.Vyas for the petitioner has pointed out various clauses of the Brochure of Selection of Dealers issued by the respondent no.1-Corporation. H