1. The Petitioner has preferred the instant Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records of the First Respondent/the State Co-ordinator (Tamil Nadu and Pondicherry) and CPIO Retail Bharath Petroleum Corporation Limited, Chennai, made in proceedings No.SCO(TN&P)/COMP/CBE, dated 14.11.2012 and to quash the same. Further, he has also sought for passing of an order by this Court in directing the First Respondent to consider the Petitioner for selection to the Petroleum Retail Outlet at Avinashi to Karuvalur Road, Tiruppur District, pursuant to the Notification, dated 15.03.2012, issued in Daily Thanthi vide Sl.No.361.

The Writ Petition facts:

2. The First Respondent/Bharath Petroleum Corporation Limited (referred to as BPCL) invited the applications for selection of distribution of Petroleum Retail Outlet at Avinashi to Karuvalur Road in Tiruppur District. The Petitioner applied for the same under Open Category. But the selection of Retail Outlet Dealership was issued in favour of the Second Respondent at Avinashi to Karuvalur Road.

3. The Petitioner was awarded 91.9 marks and the Second Respondent scored 93.3 marks out of 100 marks. The difference between the Petitioner and the Respondent was 1.4 marks and resultantly, the Petitioner missed the selection. He made a request under the Right to Information Act, whereby the First Respondent officials with an malafide intention, in order to suppress the illegality committed by them during the selection of the Second Respondent, wilfully and wantonly refused to furnish the documents.

4. The Petitioner, in order to make a complaint as per Brochure terms and conditions No.19 requested for supply of certain documents. However, the Authorities wilfully and wantonly, with a view to conceal the information and in collusion with the Second Respondent, without even furnishing the required details, have suppressed the information by not even furnishing the Land and Property details, Financial Status, etc. As a matter of fact, the Information Officer while taking Xerox copy has wilfully omitted certain column in taking Xerox which clearly shows that there is a case of suppression.

5. Indeed, the BPCL Brochure for selection of Petrol/Diesel Retail Outlet Dealership mentions that the information and documents provided by the applicants may be disclosed by BPCL to third parties under the Right to Information Act, 2005. The Petitioner made a request to the First Respondent through letter dated 09.08.2012 stating that unless the documents are furnished, he would be greatly prejudiced. He has also made an Appeal under the RTI Act in this regard. When a person, who opted for Dealership submitted the documents, it is the bounden duty of the Selection Committee to scrutinise the particulars.

6. Clause – 10 of the Brochure terms and conditions speaks about the application Form and Sub Clause (k) enjoins as under :

"If any statement made in the application or in the documents enclosed therewith by the candidate at any stage is found to be incorrect or false and / or the applicant conceals any information which if declared would have made him/ her ineligible for dealership the application, the application i.e. Liable to be rejected and in case the applicant has been appointed as a dealer, the dealership is liable to be terminated. In such cases the candidate / dealer shall have no claim whatsoever against the oil company."

That apart, Clause 13 of the Brochure terms and conditions speaks about 'evaluation of applicants'. The Petitioner has received only the partial documents even though he requested for supply of entire documents. The First Respondent's Office at Coimbatore has given the application form comprising of pages 1, 2, 3 and 6 alone. In fact, in the application, despite the Petitioner making a specific request (under RTI Act) to furnish the application Form, property details, audited statement of accounts, etc, so as to enable him to submit a detailed complaint to prove the irr