Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Mahesh Kumar vs Bharat Petroleum Corp Ltd&Ors; on 3 July, 2017
Bench: Ajay Rastogi, Ashok Kumar Gaur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT
JAIPUR
D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 80 / 2017
Mahesh Kumar Son of Shri Ramniwas, Dhani Gumansingh, Post
Neem Ka Thana, District Sikar (Rajasthan)
----Appellant
Versus
1. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited Through Its Chief
Vigilance Officer, Bharat Bhavan-1-486, Karim Morya Belar Estate,
Mumbai- 400001
2. The Territory Manager (R) Bharat Petroleum Corporation
Limited, Regional Office of Jaipur Division, Jaipur
3. The Superintending of Police, Central Investigation Bureau, CJO
Complex, Pratham Tal, Block No. 4, Lodhi Road, New Delhi-110003
4. The Secretary, Central Vigilance Aayoge, Satarkta Bhawan, JPO
Complex, Block-A, R.N.A, New Delhi-110023
5. Shri Virendra Yadav Son of Shri Bhagirath Mal, Village Sirohi,
Tehsil Neem Ka Thana, District Sikar -332714
6. The District Collector, Sikar
----Respondents
_____________________________________________________ For Appellant(s) : Mr. Mahesh Kalwania, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Pradeep Kalwania, Adv. _____________________________________________________ HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY RASTOGI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR GAUR Order 03/07/2017 Instant special appeal is directed against order of the ld.Single Judge dt.23.11.2016.
Brief facts of the case which are relevant for the present purpose are that the process was initiated by the Oil Company namely Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited for allotment of (2 of 4) [SAW-80/2017] retail outlet dealership by giving a wide circulation/publication in the newspapers including the prosposed retail outlet dealership between Sirohi and Chala on SH-37B Rev. District Sikar, State of Rajasthan in the Category- Open, BPC Marketing Plan.
Indisputably, the present petitioner/appellant was not a candidate who has submitted his application to participate in the process which was initiated by the Oil Company for allotment of retail outlet dealership for the location in question. It will be relevant to notice at this stage that one of the candidate who had participated in the process for allotment of retail outlet dealership in question had also preferred a writ petition - CWP No.17046/2016 which is pending before the ld.Single Judge of this court.
Indisputably, the present appellant has no locus standi to question the process initiated by the Oil Company for allotment of retail outlet dealership. However, he has earlier preferred a PIL - D.B.Civil Writ Petition No.17973/2016 but that came to be dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 18.01.2017.
Before the ld.Single Judge, objection was raised by the respondent No.5 Virendra Yadav, to whom LOI has been allotted and taking note of the submissions made, the ld.Single Judge was of the view that the present petitioner/appellant has no locus standi to question the allotment made as he being not a party to the proceedings no right of the petitioner/appellant, individually or collectively, in any manner is going to be adversely affected and taking note thereof observed that in the absence of the appellant having any locus standi to question the procedure followed by the (3 of 4) [SAW-80/2017] Oil Company for allotment of retail outlet dealership, of which reference has been made supra, the very writ petition filed at his instance is not maintainable but at the same time observation on merits of the matter regarding the later compliance being made & its effect in the order impugned dt.23.11.2016 was not required.
Counsel for the appellant submits that if the petitioner/ appellant has no locus standi to question the procedure being followed for allotment of retail outlet dealership, the further observation made by the ld.Single Judge on merits in question will certainly defeat the rights of the candidate who had filed Writ Petition No.17046/2016 and his rights are going to be jeopardized and that apart counsel for the appellant has tried to persuade this court that even if he was not a candidate to the proceedings still he has locus to question the allotment made more so when the procedure followed is per se bad in law and in utter violation of the guidelines of allotment published by the Oil Company.
Mr. Pradeep Kalwania, counsel for respondent-caveator, while supporting order of the ld.Single Judge submits that in absence of the present appellant having any locus standi to question the allotment made, no error has been committed by the ld.Single Judge in passing the order impugned and as regards merit is concerned, since the finding has been recorded by the ld.Single Judge after taking into consideration the material available on record at that certainly be binding at the time of examining the issue raised by the candidate who is one of the participant in the process initiated by the respondents for allotment of retail outlet dealership question in the instant proceedings.
(4 of 4) [SAW-80/2017] After we have heard counsel for the parties, we are also of the view that in the absence of appellant having any locus standi, the writ petition filed at his instance questioning the procedure being followed for allotment of retail outlet dealership is certainly not maintainable but the same time if the instant writ petition was not maintainable, there was no justification available to further examine the issue on merits & record a finding which may certainly affect the rights of the parties in the pending Writ Petition No.17046/2016. It is informed that the present appellant's counsel is representing the writ petitioner pending before the ld.Single Judge, of which reference has been made supra.
The appeal is accordingly disposed of with the clarification that what has been observed by the ld.Single Judge on merits of the issue may not prejudice the inter se rights of the parties in the pending writ petition 17046/2016.
(ASHOK KUMAR GAUR),J. (AJAY RASTOGI),J. A.Kumar/8