O R D E R

The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records of the second respondent comprised in the impugned order of rejection of the petitioner's valid objections in Ref.SZ/RRK/LEGAL dated July 16, 2009 passed by the second respondent, quash the same and to direct the respondents 1 to 3 to consider the petitioner's better merits and eligibility afresh and select him for award of Retail HPC Outlet for Muthupet in Tiruvarur District as notified by the respondent – Corporation under Scheduled Caste quota by revoking the award favouring the fourth respondent.

2.The case of the petitioner is that pursuant to the advertisement made by Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited [in short, 'HPCL'], the petitioner had applied for its Retail Outlet Dealership to be located at Muthupet in Tiruvarur District under Schedule Caste Category. The respondents 1 to 3 conducted interview on 12.03.2005 at about 9.30 a.m., and the petitioner participated in the interview. However, the fourth respondent was selected for running the HPCL Outlet. Hence, the petitioner submitted representation – cum – objection through his counsel to the respondents and the said objection was rejected by the second respondent vide order dated 12.11.2008. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed W.P.No.4395 of 2009 before this Court and this Court vide order dated 23.04.2009 set aside the order impugned in the said writ petition and remitted the matter back to the second respondent for passing a speaking order. Thereafter, the impugned order was passed by the second respondent. Hence, this writ petition.

3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that this writ petition has been filed mainly on three grounds, namely, (i) a family member of the fourth respondent own a petrol bunk at Velankanni. Once, a family member own a petrol bunk, other family member is not entitled for dealership of retail outlet. To substantiate the same, the learned counsel relied upon the public notice issued by one Sivasamy through his counsel on 22.02.2008; (ii) the fourth respondent is a practising Advocate and without obtaining prior permission from the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu applying for dealership of HPCL Retail Outlet is non est in law; and (iii) the respondent Corporation fixed the outlet business place at Muthupet in Tiruvarur District, however, the fourth respondent was given dealership in a far away place. The learned counsel further submitted that the respondent Corporation, without considering all these defects granted dealership of HPCL Retail Outlet in favour of the fourth respondent is not sustainable one.

4.The learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 to 3 submitted that the conditions prescribed in the Notification was scrupulously followed by the respondent Corporation and after following the entire process, rightly granted dealership of HPCL Retail Outlet in favour of the fourth respondent, which is legally sustainable one.

5.The learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 to 3 further submitted that the fourth respondent is a married man and he is not coming under the definition of family member of the person who own petrol bunk at Velankanni. Though the fourth respondent is a practising Advocate, there is no necessity for him to get prior permission from the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu while applying for dealership of HPCL Retail Outlet. Only, after he gets selected, he need to dis-continue his practice as an Advocate. Though the respondent corporation fixed the outlet business place at Muthupet in Tiruvarur District, however, the fourth respondent was given dealership in a far away place and it is not the fault of the fourth respondent. It is the wisdom of the respondent Corporation to locate a place, in which, the petitioner is not an aggrieved person. Hence, the grounds raised by the petitioner is not sustainable one.

6.The learned counsel appearing for the fourth responde