Madras High Court
P.Lilly Mercy Santha Kumari vs The Secretary on 30 October, 2015
Author: R.Subbiah
Bench: R.Subbiah
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Dated : 30.10.2015
ORDERS RESERVED ON: 07.10.2015
ORDERS DELIVERED ON :
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBBIAH
W.P.(MD)Nos. 1298 of 2015, 3829, 5136 of 2014,
10694 and 15127 of 2015
W.P.(MD).Nos.1298,3829,5136 of 2014:-
P.Lilly Mercy Santha Kumari
... Petitioner in all WPs
Vs.
1.The Secretary,
Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gases,
New Delhi.
2.The Chairman,
Indian Oil Corporation Ltd,
Corporate Office,
3079/3, Sadiq Nagar,
J.B.Tito Marg,
New Delhi-110 049.
3.The Executive Director,
Indian Oil Corporation Ltd,
Marketing Division,
Indian Oil Bhavan,
139, Nungambakkam High Road,
Chennai-600 034.
4.The Deputy General Manager,
(LPG Sales),
Indian Oil Corporation Ltd,
Marketing Division,
Indian Oil Bhavan,
139, Nungambakkam High Road,
Chennai-600 034.
5.The Joint Chief Controller of Explosives,
South Circle Office,
The Ministry of Commerce and Industry
Petroleum and Explosive Safety Organisation (Peso)
(formerly) department of explosives,
No.140, Rukmani Lakshmipathi Salai,
Egmore, Chennai-600 008.
6.The Chief Area Manager,
Indian Oil Corporation Limited,
Indane Area Office,
No.2, Race Course Road,
Chokkikulam, Madurai-625 002.
7.Smt.Seetha Lakshmi.
... Respondents in W.P.(MD).No.1298/2014
1.The Deputy General Manager,
(LPG Sales),
Indian Oil Corporation Ltd,
Marketing Division,
Indian Oil Bhavan,
139, Nungambakkam High Road,
Chennai-600 034.
2.The Chief Area Manager,
Indian Oil Corporation Limited,
Indane Area Office,
No.2, Race Course Road,
Chokkikulam, Madurai-625 002.
3.Smt.Seetha Lakshmi.
... Respondents in W.P.(MD).No.5136 of 2014
1.The Chief Vigilance Officer,
Vigilance Department,
Indian Oil Corporation Ltd,
Scope Complex,
Core-2, 7 Institutional Area,
Lodhi Road,
New Delhi-110 003.
2.Seethalakshmi
... Respondents in W.P.(MD).No.3829 of 2014
W.P.(MD)No.1298 of 2014:- Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified
Mandamus to call for the records of the order of the 6th respondent in
MAO/606/10 dated 25.10.2010 granting LPG distributor license
No.G/SC/TN/06/1787 to the 7th respondent and quash the same under Rule 11 of
the GUIDELINES FOR SELECTION OF REGULARR LPG DISTRIBUTORS and directing the
respondents 4 and 6 to give opportunity to the petitioner to apply once again
and consider the petitioner.
W.P.(MD).No.3829 of 2014:- Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus to direct
the first respondent to conduct proper investigation and take necessary legal
action for the fraudulent grant of the LPG distributor license
No.G/SC/TN/06/1787 granted to the second respondent by considering the
petitioner's representation dated 11.02.2014 within the stipulated period.
W.P.(MD).No.5136 of 2014:- Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India praying for issuance of Writ of Certiorari to call for
the records of the order of the first respondent in MAO/606/13 dated
18.09.2013 and quash the same as violated the mandatory provisions of Clause
21 of the GUIDELINES FOR SELECTION OF REGULARR LPG DISTRIBUTORS.
W.P.(MD).No.10694 of 2015: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India praying for issuance of Writ of Mandamus directing the
first respondent to conduct proper investigation and take necessary legal
action for cheating and fraudulent acts of the respondents 2 and 3 by
considering the petitioner's representation dated 18.02.2014.
W.P.(MD).No.15127 of 2015: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus to
direct the first respondent to conduct the distributorship granted to the
fourth respondent by considering the petitioner's representation dated
18.02.2014 within the stipulated period of this Court.
W.P.(MD).No.3829 of 2014:
!For petitioner : Mr.Venkatachalapathy
Senior Counsel for
Mr.A.Hajamohideen
^For R.1 : Mr.S.Balakrishnan
C.G.S.C
For R.2 : Mr.S.Babu Rajendran
W.P.(MD).No.1298 of 2014:
For petitioner : Mr.Venkatachalapathy
Senior Counsel for
Mr.A.Hajamohideen
For R.1 & 5 : Mr.S.Balakrishnan
C.G.S.C
For R.2 to 4 & 6 : Mr.K.Muraleedharan
For R.7 Mr.S.Babu Rajendran
W.P.(MD).No.5136 of 2014:
For petitioner : Mr.Venkatachalapathy
Senior Counsel for
Mr.A.Hajamohideen
For R.1 & 2 : Mr.K.Muraleedharan
For R.3 Mr.S.Babu Rajendran
W.P.(MD).No.10694 of 2015:
For petitioner : Mr.Venkatachalapathy
Senior Counsel for
Mr.A.Hajamohideen
For R.1 & 3 : Mr.K.Muraleedharan
For R.2 : Mr.S.Babu Rajendran
W.P.(MD).No.15127 of 2015:
For petitioner : Mr.Venkatachalapathy
Senior Counsel for
Mr.A.Hajamohideen
For R.1 & 2 : Mr.S.Balakrishnan
C.G.S.C
For R.3 : Mr.K.Muraleedharan
For R.4 : Mr.S.Babu Rajendran
*******
:COMMON ORDER
Since the issue involved in all these Writ Petitions are one and the same, they are all taken up together and disposed of by a common order.
2. There are totally five Writ Petitions. Out of which, the Writ Petitions in W.P.(MD).Nos.1298,3829 and 5136 of 2014 have been filed by one P.Lilly Mercy Santha Kumar. Similarly, W.P.(MD).Nos.10694 and 15127 of 2015 have been filed by one N.Nagarajan.
3. The Writ Petition in W.P.(MD).No.1298 of 2014 has been filed praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the order of the 6th respondent in MAO/606/10 dated 25.10.2010 granting LPG distributor license No.G/SC/TN/06/1787 to the 7th respondent and quash the same under Rule 11 of the GUIDELINES FOR SELECTION OF REGULARR LPG DISTRIBUTORS and directing the respondents 4 and 6 to give opportunity to the petitioner to apply once again and consider the petitioner for granting distributorship to her.
4. The facts narrated in W.P.(MD).No.1298 of 2014 are as follows:-
4.1. The case of the petitioner is that pursuant to the notification of the Indian Oil Corporation, dated 06.02.2008, for appointment of distributorship of LPG in Aruppukottai area, she applied for the same.
However, she could not get through the same. It is alleged that the petitioner came to know about the distributorship granted to one Seetha Lakshmi, namely, the seventh respondent herein, in due violation of the rules of guidelines for selection of regular LPG distributorship of the respondents. According to the petitioner, the said Seetha Lakshmi has fabricated the records and illegally procured the distributorship of LPG in Arupukottai, Virudhunagar District, Tamil Nadu. The said Seethalakshmi submitted an application by manipulating revenue records with regard to the properties in S.No.583/7 in Arupukottai Taluk, Virudhunagar District, Tamil Nadu, for an extent of 36 cents, wherein, as if there is no high-tension electricity line passes through. The said land cited by her is not conducive for godown and therefore, the same is not eligible to store gas cylinder, since there is high-tension electric wire is passing through the said property. The said Seethalakshmi has violated the Rule 6.1.vii of the guidelines for selection of regular LPG distributorship.
4.2. Apart from the said fact, the said Seethalakshmi manipulated the bank deposits lying in her account and she failed to maintain the said deposit till the last date of submission of application. Thus, she has deliberately violated Rule 6.1.vi of Guidelines for Selection of Regular LPG Distributorship. She has also got safety license from the fifth respondent, suppressing the fact that a high tension electricity line is running across her property in S.No.583/1B. Further, the seventh respondent also fabricated and manipulated the revenue records of Field Map Sketch pertaining to S.No.583 in Arupukottai Taluk, Virudhunagar District, Tamil Nadu by moving the properties in S.No.583/7B from north to south in the sketch. Thus, she has gone to an extent of manipulating the revenue records for her personal gain and influenced the officials to grant the license to her in contra to the reality. Further, she did not even construct the godown for storing LPG in her properties of 36 cents in S.No.583/7B and till now, it is kept as vacant site. But, she had mentioned in her application that she had constructed a godown for storing LPG in he properties of 36 cents in S.No.583/7B.
4.3. It is also learnt that the registered lease deed premises procured by the said Seethalakshmi dated 24.02.2010 for a period of 18 years has been cancelled on 13.06.2013 through registered cancellation deed document No.2816/2013. She also has shifted her show room premises again and again without any proper permission from the respondent's officials. The seventh respondent is not eligible to continue the LPG Distributorship under Rule 6.i.vii and 6.i.viii of the Guidelines for Selection of Regular LPG distributors.
4.4. In view of the above-said illegalities the distributorship granted to the seventh respondent was cancelled on 08.04.2013. Subsequently, once again she got back her distributorship by fraud. Hence, the distributorship granted to the said Seethalakshmi has to be terminated under Rule 11 of Guidelines for Selection of Regular LPG Distributors.
5. When the Writ Petition in W.P.(MD).No.1298 of 2014 is pending, the petitioner has come forward with another Writ Petition in W.P.(MD).No.3829 of 2014 directing the Chief Vigilance Officer, New Delhi, to conduct proper investigation and take necessary legal action for the fraudulent grant of the LPG distributorship license No.G/SC/TN/06/1787 granted to the said Seethalakshmi by considering her representation dated 11.02.2014.
6. Similarly, when Writ Petitions in W.P.(MD).No.1298 of 2014 and 3829 of 2014 are pending, another Writ Petition came to be filed by the said P.Lilly Mercy Santha Kumari in W.P.(MD).No.5136 of 2014 praying to call for the records of the first respondent in MAO/606/13 dated 18.09.2013 and quash the same as violated the mandatory provisions of Clause 21 of the Guidelines for Selection of Regular LPG Distributorships. By said order dated 18.09.2013, the first respondent had revoked the suspension of the distributorship granted to the said Seethalakshmi. The sum and substance of the facts narrated in W.P.(MD).No.5136 of 2014 is that the Seethalakshmi is not at all eligible for granting distributorship to her in view of violation committed by her at every stages of the process.
7. While the matter stood thus, one N.Nagarajan moved a Writ Petition in W.P.(MD).No.10694 of 2015 praying for a direction to the first respondent i.e.the Chief Vigilance Officer to conduct proper investigation and take necessary legal action for cheating and fraudulent acts of the second and the third respondents, namely, the said Seethalakshmi and Sri.Mathivanan Area Manager, Indian Oil Corporation, by considering his representation dated 18.02.2014.
8. The facts narrated in W.P.(MD).No.10694 of 2015 are as follows:-
8.1. It is stated that on the hope that the petitioner would be included one of the partners in the distributorship given to the said Seetha Lakshmi, he extended financial help to her for which she executed a a 'Urthimozhi deed' in stamp papers on 10.02.2008 acknowledging Rs.22,00,000/-
and agreed to include the petitioner as one of the partners in the LPG business. In the said deed, she also agreed that if the distributorship was not granted then she would return the money with interest the rate of 18% per annum from 10.02.2008 to till date of payment. The said Seetha Lakshmi also got distributorship from the official respondents. It is alleged that for approving the partnership between the petitioner, namely, the said N.Nagarajan and Seethalakshmi, the third respondent, namely, Mathivanan, Area Manager, Indian Oil Corporation Ltd, Madurai, demanded money. Since the petitioner could not pay the money as demanded by the third respondent, who in turn refused to approve the partnership. In the meantime, the second respondent Seethalakshmi colluded with the third respondent and set up another partner Smt.K.Indira Gandhi, w/o.Krishnasamy, by including her in the partnership business by receiving a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- from the said Indira Gandhi. Hence, by stating all these facts, the petitioner sent a representation dated 18.02.2014 to the first respondent. Though it was received by the first respondent, the first respondent did not act upon the said representation. Since the second respondent continuously committed fraud in the partnership business, the petitioner filed a O.S.No.121 of 2015 in which an interim injunction was passed on 05.06.2015 in I.A.No.579/2015 restraining the second respondent from doing a business of Siddharatha Indane Gas Service. Subsequently, she has filed a revision before the high court and the same is pending. In the above background, the petitioner has sought for a direction to consider the representation dated 18.02.2014.
9. When the said Writ Petition is pending for consideration, the petitioner, namely, N.Nagarajan, has moved another Writ Petition in W.P.(MD).No.15127 of 2015 directing the first respondent to conduct proper enquiry and take necessary action to cancel the distributorship granted to the fourth respondent by considering the representation dated 18.02.2014. The facts stated in W.P.(MD).No.15127 of 2015 are akin to the facts stated in W.P.(MD).No.10694 of 2015. Since the said representation was not considered by the official respondents, the petitioner is before this Court.
9. Counter affidavit of Seethalakshmi:-
The successful distributor, namely, Seethalakshmi has filed a detailed counter affidavit in respect of the Writ Petitions filed in W.P.(MD).Nos.1298 and 5136 of 2014 and 10694 of 2015 and inter alia stating that the petitioners are neither interested nor an aggrieved person in the subject matter and they are only a puppet of one Seenivasan, who is the man playing all the games. The allegation raised by the petitioners that the records were manipulated in S.No.583/7 in Aruppukkottai Taluk, Virudhunagar District, for an extent of 36 cents that there is high tension wire passing through the said land is denied. The authority has awarded the distributorship in favour of the said Seethalakshmi, after perusing the application and subsequent field verification. There was no violation of rules and guidelines for selection of distributorship as alleged by the Writ Petitioners. Further, the high tension electrical line, exists far away of the construction godown meeting all the explosives norms. The further allegation that there is no huge amount in the Bank account of the seventh respondent is also denied. The entire marks were calculated according to the eligibility norms of the official respondents.
9.1. Further, the seventh respondent Seetha Lakshmi is eligible for appointment of LPG distributorship under paramilitary posthumous W(PMP-W) since her husband was killed in a guerilla attack. After scrutinisation of application, an interview was conducted on 15.06.2009 and subsequently a letter of intent was issued to the petitioner on 30.12.2009. An explosive licence was granted on 28.06.2010 for storage of LPG's cylinders upto 30.09.2014. Subsequently, she was appointed as a LPG distributor under ?PMP(W)? category for Aruppukkottai area by the order of the respondent dated 25.10.2010. Originally, the storage of LPG license was granted at S.No.583/7B on Malaipatti to Aruppukottai Road, Virudhunagar and one Seenivasan initially assisted the said Seethalakshmi in the affairs of her business, but in view of the dispute at later stage a case in Crime No.686/2013 came to be registered before Aruppukottai Town Police Station as against the said Srinivasan and the same is pending enquiry. Subsequently, civil suits and interlocutory applications also came to be filed between them. In the mean time, since the said Seenivasan was making all sorts of trouble in the business and property, the said Seethalakshmi requested for suspension of distributorship through her letter dated 17.04.2013 and accordingly, it was suspended on 18.04.2013. Even before that, the Seethalakshmi approached the authority for relocating the LPG godown and showroom. The second respondent by his letter dated 04.11.2013 has granted approval for relocating LPG Godown to the new location at S.Nos.393/6, Mallappatti-Aruppukkottai Road, Aruppukkottai and also approved for shifting of showroom at Door No.17(1), Nesavalar Colony 2nd Stop, Maharani Theatre Bus stop, Madurai main Road, Aruppukottai.
9.2. After getting approval from the Controller of Explosives, by order dated 13.11.2013 the proposed godown was constructed. After completing the construction work and after due process, the first respondent by his letter dated 18.09.2013 revoked the suspension of the distributorship.
Further, the explosive license already granted by the Deputy Chief Controller of Explosive for a period upto 30.09.2014 has been cancelled and a new licence was issued by the Deputy Chief Controller of Explosives for a period upto 30.09.2018, by his order dated 07.04.2014. Having failed to get an interim order of suspension of appointment dated 25.10.2010, in W.P.(MD).No.1298 of 2014, the Writ petitioner Lilly Mercy Santha Kumari has filed another Writ Petition in W.P.(MD).No.3829 of 2014 seeking a prayer to conduct proper investigation on the basis of the representation dated 11.02.2014. Not satisfied with that, the petitioner in W.P.(MD).No.1298 of 2014 filed yet another Writ Petition in W.P.(MD).No.5136 of 2014 challenging the order of the Corporation by revoking the suspension of dealership and obtained order of status quo. In view of the order of status quo granted in W.P.(MD).No.5136 of 2014, the said Seethalakshmi filed Writ Petition directing the Oil Corporation to supply the gas cylinders to the show room on the basis of the order of revocation of suspension in W.P.(MD).No.7419 of 2014, which is pending before this Court.
10. She has also filed an additional counter affidavit reiterating the counter affidavit made in W.P.(MD).No.1298 of 2014. Further, she submitted that having failed in all the attempts, the said Srinivasan took another weapon through another one Nagarajan, who is the petitioner in W.P.(MD).Nos.10694 and 15127 of 2015. The said Seethalakshmi submitted that through the said Nagarajan, the said Srinivasan has fabricated a partnership deed as if the seventh respondent Seethalakshmi and the said Srinivasan entered into an agreement and registered the same on 21.02.2014, after a period of three years. When the seventh respondent came to know about the forgery committed by the said Seenivasan, the seventh respondent lodged a compliant as against the said Seenivasan before Virudhungar West Police Station in Crime No.284 of 2014 on 27.05.2014. Having failed in all his attempts, the said Seenivasan filed a suit in O.S.No.121 of 2015 through Nagarajan. As against the said suit, the seventh respondent Seetha Lakshmi filed a Civil Revision Petition for striking of the plaint before this Court and the same is pending.
11. As far as fabrication of revenue records are concerned, the property situated in S.No.583/7 to an extent of one acre 36 cents is originally belonged to one S.Sujatha. Out of the said one acre 36 cents, the petitioner purchased an extent of western 36 cents from the said Sujatha through a registered sale deed dated 03.03.2008. After the purchase of the property, it was sub-divided as 583/7B and the seventh respondent Seetha Lakshmi constructed go-down after getting plan approval from the authority concerned. The patta and survey sketch also issued. Subsequent to the purchase, the said Seenivasan has purchased the remaining one acre in the said Survey number through a registered document No.270/2009 on 21.01.2009. The seventh respondent Seethalakshmi obtained the planning permission and constructed the godown during the year 2010 to the knowledge of the said Seenivasan. The property purchased by the said Seenivasan lies in S.No.583/7A. The concerned authority also issued the patta in favour of the petitioner in S.No.879 and subsequently, the said Seenivsan has sent a compliant to the Indian Oil Corporation and hence, the Corporation has sent a letter to the Tahsildar on 07.05.2014 for seeking clarification. The said Seenivasan also sent petition on 13.05.2014 to cancel the patta transfer order passed by the Tahsildar vide TK8A148/1419 dated 07.10.2009. After enquiry, the Revenue Divisional Officer passed an order on 03.07.2014 to cancel the patta transfer order and to issue patta in the joint names of Seethalakshmi and Seenivasan. The Revenue Divisional Officer, by his order, dated 26.08.2014 held that the property purchased by the said Seethalakshmi lies on the North-West portion in S.No.583/7, but in the sketch issued by them it shows south-west portion and the changes made in the survey sketch are mistaken with reference to the document purchased by Seethalakshmi and the said Sreenivasan and the Tahsildar, passed on order on 03.09.2014 and held that the survey sketch are mistakenly issued by them. Thus, it is clear that no question of fabricating the revenue records by the petitioner. Further, for the very same subject, suit as well as civil miscellaneous appeals are pending before the competent civil court. Further, the petitioner has got remedy before the Grievance/complaint redressal system as per the selection brochures. Infact, various complaints have been lodged against the said Seenivasan, Nagarajan and others by the petitioner. In all the cases, the said Seenivasan and Nagarajan have filed bail petition and quash petitions. All these facts would show that the petitioners in all the Writ Petitions have colluded together with a sole intention to disturb the distributorship granted to the said Seethalakshmi. Hence, she prayed for the dismissal of all the Writ Petitions.
The counter affidavit of the Indian Oil Corporation:-
12. The counter affidavit of the official respondents in W.P.(MD).Nos.1298, 5136 of 2014 and 10694 of 2015 are summarized below:-
12.1. The contention of the petitioners that a high tension electrical line passes through the property in question is denied as the same is far away from the constructed go down. Hence, there is no violation of Rule 6.1vii of selection guidelines as alleged by the petitioners. Further, it is true that the deposit amount was not maintained by the said Seethalakshmi. Accordingly, candidate's marks were calculated and marks were awarded for granting the distributorship. In case any deviations are found to be proved, suitable action will be taken by the Corporation, as per the policy. The third respondent had produced valid lease document during the Field Investigation and found valid and accordingly the name of Seetha Lakshmi was recommended for distributorship. Once selected, based on corporations requirement the appointed distributor is permitted to change the showroom on need basis. Further, the distributorship operation is governed by Marketing Discipline Guidelines (MDG) and suitable action was taken on the above agency for the observed deviations. Further, the writ petitioner has got alternative remedy before the Grievance/Complaint Redressal System as per Clause 21 of mentioned in Selection Brochure. Hence, without resorting the remedy available as mentioned above filing of Writ Petition is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed. The petitioner is abusing the process of the court by filing vexatious Writ Petitions one after another without any substance or base or grounds and mislead the court by suppressing the real facts and submitting false and baseless allegations and such attitude of the petitioner and the persons behind them have to be condemned by imposing compensatory cost.
12.2. Further the role of the Vigilance Department to enquire into the allegations alleged by the petitioners is concerned, any complaint which are already under the investigation of external statutory law enforcement agencies and matters which are sub-judice in the Court of law are not taken up for conclusive investigation/recommendation by the Vigilance Department, pending outcome of the verdict. The petitioner, namely, Nagarajan has sent a complaint dated 18.02.2014 addressed to various officials of Indian Oil Corporation Ltd including the first respondent / Chief Vigilance Officer of Corporation. Further, the Vigilance Department does not have the power of decision making but only to investigate the matter and submit the advisory report to the competent authority on matters having vigilance angle against the officials for taking necessary action under CDA rules. Hence, the Writ Petitions seeking for the relief of directing the first respondent, namely, the Chief Vigilance Officer to take legal action against the second and the third respondents regarding their role in appointment of distributorship is both legally and factually unsustainable. Such prayer is not coming under the purview of the Writ Petition. Eventually, the official respondents prayed for the dismissal of the Writ Petitions.
13. The learned Senior Counsel submitted that the said Seethalakshmi has obtained the dealership by producing the forged documents and suppressing the material facts. He further submitted that with the connivance of the revenue officials she manipulated S.Nos.583/7 so as to enable her to get the distributorship depriving the opportunity of the petitioner, namely, P.Lilly Mercy Santha Kumari. Therefore, the distributorship granted to her is in violation of Rule 6.1.vi of Guidelines for Selection of Regular LPG Distributorship. As per the guidelines, if the information furnished to the Indian Oil Corporation is found to be false, at any point of time, before and after the dealership granted to an applicant, can be cancelled. In the case on hand, the actual facts came to light to the petitioner, after a period of four years. Further, the said Seethalakshmi is failed to maintain the deposit in her account till the finalisation of the distributorship which is in violation of Clauses 4 and 5(e) of the guidelines issued by the Indian Oil Corporation. Further, the land cited by the said Seethalakshmi is not suitable for having go down as the electrical line passes through the said land. The said Seethalakshmi kept on changing the go-
down with the support of the Indian Oil Corporation Officials. Thus, the learned Senior Counsel sought for quashing of the order dated 25.10.2010 granting LPG dealership to the seventh respondent. In support of his contentions, he has relied on the following judgments:-
(I)Shilpa Khakholia Vs Union of India, reported in CDJ 2011 Assam HC 516. (II)John Sundararaj and others Vs. Oil Selection Board and others reported in 1997 Writ L.R.342.
(III)S.P.Chengalvaraya Naidu Vs Jagannath reported in (1994) 1 SCC 1.
14. Per contra, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Indian Oil Corporation submitted that it is incorrect to state that by suppressing the material facts, the said Seethalakshmi got distributorship. A proper interview was conducted and marks were awarded according to her eligibility, as per the guidelines of the IOC. With regard to the contention that the property purchased by the said Seethalakshmi lies on the North-West portion in S.No.583/7, but in the sketch issued by them it shows south-west portion and the changes made in the survey sketch are mistaken with reference to the document purchased by the said Seethalakshmi and the said Sreenivasan and the Tahsildar, passed on order on 03.09.2014 and held that the survey sketch are mistakenly issued by them. Further, the allegation of the Writ Petitioners that the said Seethalakshmi has not maintained the minimum deposit as required by the IOC is concerned, according to the deposit maintained by the said Seethalakshmi, the marks were awarded and ultimately, she was selected for granting distributorship. Therefore, there is absolutely no suppression of facts as alleged by the petitioner. The other point taken to be consideration is that the distributorship given to the said Seethalakshmi is in the year 2010. After four years, the Writ Petitioners have approached this Court without any rhyme or reason. Therefore, these Writ Petitions are liable to be dismissed on the ground of laches. In support of his contentions, he placed the following judgments:-
(i)In an unreported judgment made in W.P.(MD).No.11111 of 2011 dated 20.09.2012.
(ii)Prividhya Bhavani Vs. The Senior Area Manager and others, W.P.(MD).No.8688 of 2012
(iii)Swapan Kumar Pal Vs. Achintya Kumar Nayak and others reported in (2008) 2 MLJ 569 (SC).
(iv)The Senior Area Manager & another Vs. M.Natesan reported in 2010 Writ L.R.897.
(v)K.Gayathri Vs The General Manager reported in 2014 Writ L.R.819.
15. The learned counsel appearing for the seventh respondent Seethalakshmi submitted that there is no manipulation of records as alleged by the Writ Petitioner. The Writ Petitions filed by the petitioners are nothing but anguish over the selection of distributorship granted to the said Seethalakshmi. The respondents did field verification of the site given by the said Seethalakshmi. After satisfying all the eligibility norms, the distributorship was granted by the respondents which cannot be questioned by the respondents. The Writ Petitioners are filing Writ Petitions after Writ Petitions without any ground at all. Further, the Writ Petitioners have failed to avail an alternative remedy before the Grievance/Complaint Redressal System as per Clause 21 of mentioned in Selection Brochure in time. As far as non-consideration of the representation is concerned, the Vigilance Department has no power to enquire into the same when the matters are sub- judice by the Court. Therefore, in the instant case no direction could be given to the respondents and prayed for the Writ Petitions.
16. I heard the submissions made by the parties concerned and perused the materials available on record. I have also perused the judgments relied on by all the parties.
17. Though very many contentions have been raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners this Court is of the considered view that this Court cannot conduct any roving enquiry regarding the selection process adopted by the I.O.C as it is well within the domain of the official respondents. The Writ Petitioner cannot dictate the terms and conditions for granting the distributorship to an applicant. Before awarding the distributorship, it is well known fact that an evaluation is done by an expert body. After taking note of all the features, the distributorship is granted to an applicant which cannot be found fault by the petitioners for some reason or the other. It is apt to mention that a Division Bench of this Court in a judgment reported in 2014 Writ L.R.819, K.Gayathir Vs. The General Manager, has held that the evaluation done by the expert body cannot be normally be interfered by this Court, unless the exercise is tainted with arbitrariness or mala fide acts. Though the Writ Petitioners alleges mala fide, they have not produced any substantive material to support their contentions. Further, the official respondents after considering all the relevant aspects have awarded the marks to the said Seethalakshmi. Accordingly, she was selected for awarding distributorship. The said distributorship was granted way back in the year 2010. After four years, the Writ Petitioners have approached this Court with certain allegations. In this regard, as rightly contended by the official respondents, the Writ Petitioners, as per the guidelines, should have approached the respondents in time. Having missed the bus, at this length point of time, the Writ Petitioners cannot make hue and cry, after a period of four years since the grant of distributorship to the said Seethalakshmi. It is pertinent to point out that the Supreme Court time and again held that for exercising the power of judicial review, in such type of matters, the Court has a limited role to play. It could interfere only if any legal error has been committed in the decision making process. It cannot enter into the merits of the decision arrived by the Indian Oil Corporation. In the case on hand, the petitioners could not point out any legal error committed by the said Seethalakshmi except to state some bald allegations against the said Seethalakshmi and the official respondents.
18. As regards non-consideration of representation of the Writ Petitioners is concerned, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the Official respondents that any complaint which are already under the investigation of external statutory law enforcement agencies and matters which are sub-judice in the Court of law are not taken up for conclusive investigation/recommendation by the Vigilance Department, pending outcome of the verdict. Therefore, I find that the Chief Vigilance Officer is not the competent authority, when the matters are sub judice before this Court. Therefore, the question of considering the representation of the petitioner does not arise at this distance point of time. Viewed from any angle, there is no merit in the contentions of the Writ Petitioners.
19. In view of the foregoing reasons, the Writ Petitions are liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, all the writ petitions are dismissed. No costs, consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
To
1.The District Collector, Thoothukudi District, Thoothukudi-628 101.
2.The District Revenue Officer, Office of the District Collectorate, Thoothukudi District, Thoothukudi-628 101.
3.The Tahsildar, Thoothukudi Taluk Office, Thoothukudi-628 101.
4.The Divisional Engineer, Office of the Highways Department, Thoothukudi-628 102.
5.The Superintendent of Police, Office of the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Thoothukudi-628 101.
.