Karnataka High Court
Rakesh S/O Appasaheb Gunnagol vs Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., Marketing ... on 4 June, 2012
Author: Mohan Shantanagoudar
Bench: Mohan Shantanagoudar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
CIRCUIT BENCH AT bHARWAb
TH
4
bATEb THIS THE bAY OF JUNE 2012
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAN SHANTANAGOUbAR
WRIT PETITION NO.63 208/2012 (GM-RES)
BETWEEN:
Rakesh Sb Appasaheb, Gunnagol,
Age: 31 years, 0cc: Business,
R/o H.No.18, Ambedkar Nagar,
Belgaum,
Dist: Belgaum-590001. ... PETITIONER
(By Sri Sachin S. Magadum, Adv.)
AND:
1. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.,
Marketing Division,
Karnataka State Office
Indian Oil Bhavan No.29,
Kalingarao Road (Mission Road),
Bangalore-560 027
Reptd., by its
General Manager.
2. Indian 01) Corporation Ltd.,
Marketing Division,
Karnataka State Office
Indian Oil Bhavan No.29,
Kalingarao Road (Mission Road),
Bangalore-560 027
Reptd., by its
Deputy General Manager.
3. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.,
Marketing Division Khanapur Road
Tilakwadi
Belgaum
Dist: Belgaum
Reptd. By its
Senior Divisional Retail Sales
Manager. RESPONDENTS
..
(By Sri C.V. Angadi, Adv. for R-3)
This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of
the Constitution of India praying to quash the Regulation
17.1. vide Annexure-D etc.,
This Writ Petition coming up for preliminary hearing
this day, the Court made the following.
ORDER
The petitioner has sought for quashing the notification dated 11.4.2012 vide Annexure-C insofar as it relates to the retail outlet to be established at Sankeshwar-Kamathur location (serial No.680) issued by the second respondent.
2. The records reveal that a notification was issued inviting the applications for retail outlet dealership situated at Sankeshwar-Kamathur, Belgaum district under the SC category. The present petitioner as well as other persons applied for grant of dealership. The Respondent Nos.2 and 3 having conducted the interview, published marks list of all the 24 persons who have participated in the interview. Petitioner got 34.03 marks whereas the three other persons secured 36.37, 34.33 and 37.60 marks. Thereafter further enquiry was held on other aspects. After holding further enquiry, it was found by the authority that the persons who secured 36.37, 34.33 and 37.60 marks have produced false certificates. Since the first three candidates failed to fulfil -4- the terms and conditions of award of dealership in the field verification, the location is re-advertised by the impugned notification.
3. Guideline No.17.1 deals with the field verification, which reads thus:
17.1 FTELD VERTFICATION:
- The dealership will be offered to the No.1 candidate in the merit panel on the basis of the interview after necessary field verification and Letter of Intent (LOT) will be issued.
- If the No.1 candidate is not found suitable/fails to fulfil the terms and conditions of the award of dealership or the award is to be cancelled for any reason whatsoever, the dealership will be offered to the 2 candidate in the merit panel after necessary field verification.2
nd
- If the candidate also fails to fulfil the terms and conditions of offer or found unsuitable for any reason whatsoever, then
--the dealership will 3
r d be offered to the candidate in the merit list.3
r d
- If the candidate also fails to fulfil the terms and conditions of offer or found unsuitable for any reason whatsoever, or in case where no 3 r d or candidates are available in the "merit panel" as explained above, the location may be re-advertised at the discretion of IOC.
- A person who has been issued the LOT would be required to fulfil the terms and conditions of the same within the specified time period for issuance of letter of appointment and commissioning of the dealership."
(Emphasis supplied)
4. From the above, it is clear that if the first candidate fails to fulfil the terms and conditions of the award of dealership, then the dealership will go to second merit candidate. If the second candidate fails, it goes to the third candidate and if the third candidate also fails to fulfil the terms and conditions of offer and for any other reason whatsoever, then the location would be re-advertised. -6- The said procedure is followed in this matter also. It is not In dispute that the first three meritorious candidates did not fulfil the terms and conditions of the offer or have failed and consequently found unsuitable. Hence the dealership of the retail outlet in question is re-advertised. As the procedure followed by the respondents is just and proper, no interference is called for.
Petition fails and dismissed.
Sd!- t)
JUDGE
*gss/