Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
Y. Chandraiah vs Union Of India And Others on 10 September, 1999
Equivalent citations: 1999(6)ALD89
Author: Bilal Nazki
Bench: Bilal Nazki
JUDGMENT
1. Rule Nisi. Notice before admission was issued, counters have been filed and Counsels on both the sides have been heard at length. Both the petitions raise same questions of law and fact, therefore with the consent of the parties these petitions are disposed of at this stage.
2. A notification was issued by the respondent Corporation on 31st December, 1997 calling for applications for selecting a dealer for the retail outlet of Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited at Aler, Nalgonda district. The petitioners in both the petitions submitted their applications offering their candidature. In terms of the notification, the candidates have to submit papers pertaining to their financial status, particulars of property standing in their name or in the name of their spouse and children. According to the petitioners, they gave the requisite documents along with the application. The third respondent after receiving the applications short listed the candidates and a list of three candidates was prepared. According to the petitioners, the names of the petitioners were in the list prepared by the respondents, along with them respondent No.4 was also there in the selected list. Both the petitioners were asked to appear before the Selection Board on 6th January, 1999 at Taj Mahal Hotel, Secunderabad with the original documents, They attended and both of them contend that they were hopeful of being selected finally but were not selected and respondent No.4 was selected. The petitioners made representations complaining about the fact that the spot verification had been done only in case of respondent No.4 and not in case of the petitioners. They also represented that the spot verification should have been done for all the three candidates. They sought a fresh .enquiry to be conducted into the genuineness of the field particulars given by respondent No.4 as according to the petitioners respondent No.4 had given false information to the Corporation showing the Government land as his own land. It was also contended that respondent No.4 was not eligible to be selected because he had been convicted for an offence of smuggling of forest wood which had resulted in the case being compounded.
3. On the basis of these facts, the selection of respondent No.4 is challenged mainly on three grounds. One that the respondent No.4 had shown Government land as his own land and in fact he was not owning the land where he intended to start the depot. Secondly, that the respondent No.4 was an offender who had been charged under the Forest Act for smuggling of forest wood and he had paid a fine of Rs.93,000/-. Thirdly it is contended that spot verification had been made with regard to respondent No.4 alone and not for other candidates.
4. Counters have been filed. In the counter filed by respondent No.7 it is stated that, in all 39 applications were received which were forwarded to the Selection Board which has been constituted for interviewing the candidates and recommending suitable candidates for appointment as dealers. Out of the 39 candidates called for interview, 28 appeared before the Selection Board. After assessing their relative merit, the Selection Board empanelled three candidates in order of merit for appointment. This was intimated to Bharat Petroleum Corporation. Sri K. Hanumantha Rao, respondent No.4 was No.1 in the merit list, Sri Y. Chandraiah, the writ petitioner in WP No. 12653 of 1999 was No.2 and the third person was Sri D. Priyatham Babu.
5. In the light of the assertions made in the counter affidavit, it appears that only one of the petitioner i.e., Y. Chandraiah, petitioner in WP No. 12653 of 1999 was the only candidate who figured in the merit list of three candidates. The petitioner in WP No.13890 Of 1999 i.e., D. Venkateswara Reddy was not one of the candidates as stated by him who figured in the list of three candidates. It is submitted that after the selection Board prepared the merit list of candidates, the procedure adopted by the respondents was that the field investigation was initiated one by one. The first candidate in the merit list was entitled to field investigation at the first place. Had he not been selected, then, the respondents would start the field investigation of No.2 candidate in the merit list. But, since the respondent No.4 who was No.l in the list was found eligible on field investigation, there was no question of carrying on field investigation for other candidates in the list.
6. In the light of assertions made in the affidavits and counter affidavits and in the light of arguments made by the Counsel for the parties, this Court has only to see whether respondent No.4 was eligible or not eligible. If he was eligible, then this Court may not be able to go into the question of relative merit of the candidates which has been assessed by the Selection Board itself.
7. The candidature of respondent No.4 was doubted as mentioned herein above on three grounds. One that he had shown land which did not belong to him. Secondly that he had been convicted in a economic offence and thirdly that no field investigation report was obtained for other candidates and the report was obtained only with respect to respondent No.4.
8. Taking the third ground first, the regulations in this regard are needed to be examined. The manual for selection of Dealers/Distributors lays down the norms for selection. Under chapter Matters related to Dealer Selection Board under the subtitle 'Finalisation of Panel' it is held laid down under clause (b) that Immediately after completion of the interviews Chairman, DSB will inform the names of the three candidates in alphabetical order to Non Member Secretary who will arrange to display the same on the notice board, under Clause (c) it is laid down that, The DSB shall recommend to the Oil Companies a panel of maximum three names for a particular dealership/distributorship immediately after interviews are over. Themerit panel will be finalised, signed and handed over by the DSB in a sealed envelope to the Non Member Secretary or the officer deputed by him within 24 hours. Under clause (d) it is laid down, In case, after the FIR the first empanelled candidate is not found suitable for any specific reason, concerned Oil Company will refer the matter to the Chairman who will take a decision for issue of LOI to the Next empanelled candidate. If none of the empanelled candidates are found fit as a result of the FIR or found unwilling for any reason, the location may be re-advertised for a fresh selection. In view of these regulations, it is not necessary for the respondents to get field investigation report (FIR) of the petitioner or other candidates who were in the panel except respondent No.4. Since the selection of three candidates had been made by the Board and respondent No.4 was No.l in the list, the respondents were bound to conduct field investigation of respondent No.4 and if they were satisfied with the status of the respondent No,4 who was No.l candidate in the merit list there was no necessity for them to conduct field investigation with regard to other candidates which would have been in any case unnecessary. Therefore, this ground fails.
9. Now coming to other argument that the respondent No.4 was not eligible candidate on the ground that he had shown the land which did not belong to him, the respondents have stated that it is not a fact that the respondent No.4 had shown any land to be his own land which was a Government land. In fact, on enquiry it was found that the 4th respondent had entered into an agreement for purchasing land from one Smt. G. Kalavathi who is pattedar of the land which was assigned to her by the Government. Smt. Kalavathi had no right to sell the land, the respondent No.4 did not know this fact when he entered into the agreement, but when he came to know about it from the Village Administrative Officerthe 4th respondent cancelled the agreement and purchased another piece of land. Therefore, on enquiry it was found that no false information had been given, in fact, the respondent No.4 had entered into an agreement. I have seen the original form filled up by respondent No.4 from the record. Column 16 of the proforma reads; 'Do you have a suitable site readily available or can you arrange one in the area advertised within six months, if selected? If yes, please give details. In answer to this question, respondent No.4 stated; I can arrange the suitable site within two months. Therefore, it is clear that respondent No.4 had never stated in his application that he owned and on the date when the application was made. He had only stated that he would arrange the land. Even according to the form, to make him eligible it was not necessary that he should have owned land in the area where the Depot was to be started but it was necessary that he should acquire such land within six months. According to the respondent No.7 when the letter of Intent was issued to respondent No.4 he was asked to arrange the land within 4 months and in fact he had arranged the land. So, on this ground the respondent No.4 could not be ousted from competition.
10. Now, coming to the last argument that the 4th respondent had been convicted in an economic offence therefore he was not eligible for being considered, the facts are not disputed. . The respondent No.4 had been charged with an offence under Forest Act which ended in compounding of the offence. The eligibility criteria has been laid down and is reproduced in the Manual for Selection of dealers to which a reference has been made herein above. Regulation 2.9.9 lays down, Candidates convicted for any criminal offence involving moral turpitude/economic offences and those against whom charge has been framed by the Court in such criminal proceedings would not be eligible for dealership/distributorshipand if such a person is allotted the dealership /distributorship by suppression of information, it will be cancelled, The Counsel for the petitioner submits that, since the respondent No.4 was involved and convicted in an offence which is economic in nature as the offence was under the Forest Act he was clearly debarred from being given the dealership. But, the Counsel for respondents submits that, compounding of offence would not amount to conviction and he relies on Section 320 of Code of Criminal Procedure. Section 320 of Cr.P.C deals with compounding of offences. Subsection (8) of Section 320 Cr.P.C lays down:
(8) The composition of an offence under this section shall have the effect of an acquittal of the accused with whom the offence has been compounded.
11. The learned Counsel for the respondent has referred to a judgement being Rajender Singh v. State (Delhi Administration), , in which the Court held that compounding under Section 320 Cr.PC would mean acquittal of the accused in terms of Section 320(8) Cr.PC. So, this ground also fails because the respondent No.4 was not convicted in an offence although a case was registered against him it ended in compounding and in terms of relevant law compounding would amount to an acquittal.
12. Lastly, an effort was made to challenge the selection of the three candidates in the first instance out of 29 by the writ petitioner in WP No. 13890 of 1999 who has not laid down any basis for such a challenge in the writ petition. According to him he was one of the candidates in the list of three candidates whereas he was not found in the list of three candidates. The other petitioner could not challenge the selection of three candidates because he was one of the persons in the select list. Althoughno basis has been laid down in both the writ petitions for challenging the preparation of list of three candidates, this Court heard the petitioners as well as the respondents. The procedure by which the Board makes selection is laid down in the Manual and the relevant provisions are under the title of Matters related to Dealer Selection Board. Norms have been given under Regulation 6. It lays down;
6. Norms for evaluating the candidates:
The DSB will judge the inter se suitability of the candidates on the following basis:
(a) Personality, Business ability and Salesmanship 30 marks
(b) Capability to arrange finances 20 marks
(c) Educational Qualifications & gen level of intelligence 20 marks
(d) Capability to provide infrastrure and facilities (land, godown showroom etc.) 15 marks
(e) General assessment 15 marks Total :
100 marks The record reveals, Sri G. Venkateswar Reddy (petitioner in WP No.I3890 of 1999) got 70 marks, Sri D. Preetham Babu got 83 marks, Sri Y. Chandraiah (petitioner in WP No. 12653 of 1999) got 86 marks and Sri K. Hanumanth Rao (respondent No.4) got 90 marks. So, according to the merit the three candidates were short listed. The criteria fixed which has been referred to above is neither challenged nor it appears to be arbitrary. But, the view of the Selection Board in awarding the marks to the candidates cannot be gone into by the Court and they cannot be substituted by the views of the Court. The break up on the basis of which the marks are awarded are such as Personality, capability to arrange finance, capability to provide infrastructure and general assessment. Under these heads it is only the Selection Committee which could assess the comparative merit of thecandidates before them. This is settled preposition of law that the Courts would not substitute the view of Selection Committee who are supposed to be experts in assessing the relative merit on the basis of the criteria fixed. Number of judgments have been Cited, but I do not think there is any necessity to refer to those judgments in view of the fact that it is settled preposition of law that Courts would not see whether the merit was assessed correctly or incorrectly.
13. For all these reasons, I do not find any merit in these writ petitions which are accordingly dismissed.