Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
S.M. SUBRAMANIAM, J.
B.K. Baskar – Appellant
Versus
The State Level Co-ordinator (TN & PY) Executive Director, M/s. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., Chennai & Others – Respondents
W.P. Nos. 12560 of 2013 & 27661 of 2015 & M.P. Nos. 1 of 2013 & 1 to 3 of 2015 & W.M.P. Nos. 18672 and 18673 of 2016
Decided on : 08-10-2021
Constitution Of India,1950 – Article 226 - Right To Information Act, 2005 - Permission - Distributorship Of LPG - Writ Petition filed Under Article 226 of Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari calling for records of first respondent relating to its order and quash same - Facts in nutshell are that pursuant to the advertisement published in Hindu on applications were called for by Indian Oil Corporation for appointment of Distributorship of LPG in locality in District - Petitioner and second respondent submitted their respective applications in prescribed format - Applications submitted by candidates were scrutinized by first respondent/Indian Oil Corporation and awarded marks as per brochure - Whether date of application is date mentioned by applicant in his application or date of acknowledgment of application by Indian Oil Corporation – Held, Applicants put date in their applications on day they filled up application - However some applicants may send applications through Registered Post with acknowledgment due some other may send by Speed Post or Courier or several other modes of delivery to addressee - Court is of an opinion that reasons stated for revision of empanelment of name of petitioner from is not in consonance with established principles and such reasons are not substantiated by first respondent/Indian Oil Corporation - Court cannot make a finding in respect of relative merits between candidates - It is for authorities to verify all original documents carefully and award marks - Petitioner was awarded with initial stage and thereafter it was revised as - Discrepancies Court is of an opinion that entire exercise must be conducted afresh by first respondent to ensure that distributorship is granted in a transparent manner and considering relative merits of candidates who are all eligible for grant of LPG Distributorship - He present case first respondent in their counter filed in W.P. admits fact that petitioner had applied for distributorship at vide application However they have stated in that application is - Counter itself reveals that date mentioned in application by petitioner is and said application was acknowledged by first respondent on - Court for all purposes must be date to be considered to fix eligibility to scrutinize application - Writ Petitions Allowed
JUDGMENT :
(Prayer in W.P. No. 12560 of 2013: Writ Petition filed Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records of the proceeding of the second respondent dated 16.04.2013 in recalling the petitioner's selection for L.P.G. Distributorship of location at Perambakkam and direct the respondents to award the L.P.G. Distributorship of location at Perambakkam as per the selection list dated 08.12.2011.
W.P. No. 27661 of 2015: Writ Petition filed Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records of the first respondent relating to its order in LOI Ref No.2015/IN000110/TN./000001/4112/00001 dated 03.06.2015/29.06.2015 and quash the same.)
1. The petitioner filed two Writ Petitions and the first Writ Petition filed in W.P. No. 12560 of 2013 has been filed challenging the order of rejection dated 16.04.2013. The name of the petitioner was empanelled at the first instance and he was the top scorer and secured 99.3 marks. Subsequently, the revised marks were awarded to the petitioner and the empanelment made in favour of the petitioner was cancelled. Thus, the writ petitioner filed the first Writ Petition.
2. During the pendency of the first Writ Petition, the first respondent/Indian Oil Corporation awarded LPG Distributorship in favour of the second respondent subject to the result of the Writ Petition filed in W.P. No. 12560 of 2013. Initially, an interim order was granted in the said Writ Petition. However, it was not extended by this Court. Thus, the first respondent/Indian Oil Corporation granted permission to run LPG Distributorship by the second respondent subject to the outcome of the first Writ Petition filed by the petitioner in W.P. No. 12560 of 2013. Therefore, the writ petitioner filed the second Writ Petition in W.P. No. 27661 of 2015 challenging the order awarding LPG Distributorship in favour of the second respondent.
3. The facts in nutshell are that, pursuant to the advertisement published in "The Hindu" on 15.06.2010, the applications were called for by the Indian Oil Corporation for appointment of Distributorship of LPG in Perambakkam locality in Tiruvallur District. The petitioner and the second respondent submitted their respective applications in the prescribed format. The applications submitted by the candidates were scrutinized by the first respondent/Indian Oil Corporation and awarded marks as per the brochure.
4. The petitioner scored 99.3 marks and his name was empanelled in S.No.1 and the name of the second respondent was found in S.No.2. Thus, the petitioner was expecting a letter of intent to commence the distributorship. However, the second respondent filed W.P. No.247 of 2012 before this Court to quash the selection list and to direct the first respondent/Indian Oil Corporation to award LPG Distributorship in his favour.
5. This Court passed an order on 07.11.2012 directing the authorities to consider the representation submitted by the second respondent on 23.12.2011 after hearing the petitioner and the second respondent. The first respondent has not immediately passed orders based on the direction issued by the High Court. However, the first respondent passed the impugned order dated 16.04.2013 removing the name of the petitioner from S.No.1 of the empanelment and inserted the name of the second respondent in S.No.1.
6. The order impugned dated 16.04.2013 provides three grounds for removal of the name of the petitioner from S.No.1 of the empanelment. The first ground stated is that the annual income declared in the application includes the agricultural income of the father, which is not part of the "Family Unit" defined in the advertisement. Further, the spouse's income declared in the application is not supported by consent document. Secondly, the date of application is 16.07.2010. The closing balance as on 16.07.2010 is Rs.17,49,981/-. Along with the Fixed Deposit, the total
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
