Karnataka High Court
Anantha M S S/ Siddaiah M S vs The Chief Regional Manager on 18 July, 2022
Author: S.G.Pandit
Bench: S.G.Pandit
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF JULY, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT
WRIT PETITION NO.5470/2011 (GM-RES)
BETWEEN:
ANANTHA M S S/O SIDDAIAH M S
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
R/AT "STOOPDARSHANA NIVASA"
INDIRA NAGARA, BILAGULA VILLAGE
HESGAL -POST, MUDIGERE TALUK
CHIKKAMAGALUR DISTRICT-577501.
...PETITIONER
(BY SMT. RACHITHA RAJASHEKAR, ADV. FOR
M/S. P.P.HEGDE ASSTS., ADV.)
AND:
1. THE CHIEF REGIONAL MANAGER
HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LIMITED
SEBASTIN STREET
SAROJINIDEVI ROAD, P.B.NO. 05
SECUNDARABAD-500003
ANDRAPRADESH.
2. THE SENIOR REGIONAL MANAGER
MANGALORE REGIONAL OFFICE
RETAIL SALES, HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM
CORPORATION LTD., URVA STORES
MANGALORE-575006.
2
3. SRI. PRADEEP KUMAR
S/O T N RAGHAVAIAH
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
MANAGER
M/S C. BASAVARAJ URS
BHARATH PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD.,
NO.10/A, N.H PALYA
MANADAVADI ROAD
MYSORE-570008.
4. PROPRIETOR,
M/S. BASAVARAJ URS
DEALERS; BHARATH PETROLEUM
CORPORATION LTD.,
NO.10/A, N.H. PLAYA
MANANDAVADI ROAD
MYSORE-570008.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI M.S.NARAYAN, ADV. FOR R1 & R2
SRI N.J.PREMNATH, ADV. FOR R3
V/O DATED 27.08.2015 NOTICE TO R4 IS H/S)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
EMPANELMENT OF 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 28.06.2010 IN THE
VIDE ANNEXURE-A AS ILLEGAL AND VOID; QUASH THE ORDER
PASSED IN BEARING REF.NO. MARO/SCB/RET DATED
17.11.2010 IN THE VIDE ANNEXURE-B BY THE 2ND
RESPONDENT ON THE COMPLAINT DATE 25.03.2010, AS
ILLEGAL AND VOID AND ETC.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
3
ORDER
The petitioner, an unsuccessful candidate in getting allotment of dealership of Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited (for short "the Corporation") is before this Court, praying to quash the order bearing No.MARO/SCB/RET dated 17.11.2010 (Annexure-B) wherein the petitioner's complaint is rejected; for a direction to quash empanelment of the 4th respondent dated 16.10.2010 (Annexure-A) and for a writ of mandamus directing the respondent Nos.1 to 3 to grant dealership of the Corporation at Ujire to the petitioner.
2. Heard learned counsel Smt.Rachitha Rajashekar for M/s.P.P.Hegde Associates for petitioner and learned counsel Sri.N.J.Premanath for respondent No.3 as well as Sri.M.S.Narayan, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2. Perused the writ petition papers.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that both the petitioner as well as 3rd respondent applied for dealership of the Hindustan Petroleum Corporation at Ujire, Daskhina 4 Kannada, in pursuance of the paper advertisement dated 25.03.2010. The 3rd respondent was selected for the dealership. Challenging the action of the respondent- Corporation in allotting dealership to 3rd respondent, petitioner is before this Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the experience certificate produced by 3rd respondent is fake and is not issued by appropriate person. Learned counsel inviting attention of this Court to Annexure-F/Certificate, would submit that M/s.Basavaraj Urs, a Proprietary Concern, represented by its Proprietor Smt.M.B.Meenakshi is said to have issued Annexure-F. But this certificate was issued by one Sri.M.C.Shivaprasad, Manager of M/s.Basavaraj Urs. It is submitted, inviting attention to Advertisement dated 25.03.2010 that clause (8) provides for evaluation of a candidate. In that, out of 100 marks, 4 marks is meant for experience. It is submitted that the 3rd respondent had no experience in the field as on the date of his appointment as dealer. The certificate produced by the 3rd respondent is fake and 5 fabricated. Learned counsel further submits that terms and conditions of advertisement would also indicate that if a candidate furnishes false information, the same would be a ground to reject the application itself. Referring to clause (j) of the Tender Notification, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that if the information submitted or document produced is found to be false, the authorities could take appropriate action against such person. Thus, learned counsel would submit that respondent Nos.1 and 2 could not have permitted the 3rd respondent to submit experience certificate subsequently, from the Proprietor Smt.Meenakshi of M/s.Basavaraj Urs. Thus, it is submitted that petition needs to be allowed.
4. Per contra, learned counsel Sri.N.J.Premanth, learned counsel for respondent No.3 submits that 3rd respondent had necessary experience and qualification as prescribed under Annexure-C. Therefore, Annexure-F/Certificate was issued by the Manager of the Proprietary concern. Further, he 6 submits that Smt.Meenakshi herself issued certificate Annexure-R1 dated 29.09.2010. If there was any discrepancy or fraud in issuing experience certificate as at Annexure-F, the Proprietor Smt.Meenakshi would not have supported the said document and would not have issued fresh or new document as at Annexure-R1. Thus, it is submitted that there is no merit in any of the contentions of the petitioner and prays for dismissal of the writ petition.
5. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the writ petition papers, the only point which falls for consideration is as to whether the impugned order requires interference by this Court?
6. Answer to the above point would be in the negative, for the following reasons:
Annexure-C is the Tender Notification dated 25.03.2010. Last date for submitting the tender was 26.04.2010. It is the contention of the petitioner that experience certificate produced by respondent No.3 is fake 7 and fabricated one. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the third respondent was not at all working at M/s.Basavaraj Urs and the experience certificate produced at Annexure-F cannot be treated as a valid certificate. The Certificate indicates that respondent No.3 was working in the Petrol Bunk since November 2008, till the date of issuance of certificate. The contention of the petitioner cannot be accepted for more than one reason, one being that, if the certificate itself is fabricated, the Proprietor Smt.Meenakshi would not have furnished one more certificate. Merely because certificate is signed by Manger, M/s. Basavaraj Urs and it is not signed by the proprietor, the certificate cannot be rejected. Moreover, Annexure-R1 is the certificate issued by Smt.Meenakshi, Proprietor of M/s.Basavaraj Urs. If the 3rd respondent was not working under Smt.Meenakshi, on the subsequent date, she would not have issued experience certificate. Moreover, it is seen that the petitioner had obtained marks 81.25 whereas the 3rd respondent had obtained 90 marks. Advertisement Annexure-B itself provides 8 for evaluation of candidates. It assigns 100 marks on various heads and 4 marks is earmarked for experience. If 4 marks is taken out, even then the 3rd respondent would get more marks than the petitioner. Therefore, it makes no difference.
7. The other ground urged by learned counsel for the petitioner that since 3rd respondent has furnished false and fabricated document and information, the candidature of the 3rd respondent is liable to be rejected. So far, it is not found that the experience certificate submitted by the 3rd respondent is fake or fabricated. Moreover, Annexure-B endorsement of the second respondent indicates that the second respondent-authority had conducted investigation on the complaint of the petitioner and the investigation team had found discrepancy in the experience certificate submitted by the petitioner himself. Further, it discloses that the investigation team ascertained authenticity of the certificate issued by M/s.Basavaraj Urs which reconfirmed that the 3rd respondent had worked with them and found that the 9 Certificate is a genuine certificate. Thus, I do not find any merit in the writ petition. Accordingly, the petition stands rejected.
Sd/-
JUDGE mpk/-* CT:bms