Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ashish Soni vs Indian Oil Corporation Limited on 9 May, 2024
Author: Subodh Abhyankar
Bench: Subodh Abhyankar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SUBODH ABHYANKAR
ON THE 9th OF MAY, 2024
WRIT PETITION No. 6150 of 2019
BETWEEN:-
ASHISH SONI S/O SHRI KAILASH SONI, AGED
ABOUT 29 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
AGRICULTURIST GRAM PEERKARADIYA POST
KSHIPRA TEHSIL SANWER (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY MS. PRANJALI YAJURVEDI - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED
GENERAL MANAGER THROUGH ITS
GENERAL MANAGER HEAD OFFICE INDIAN
OIL BHAWAN ALI YAVAR JUNG MARG
BANDRA (EAST) (MAHARASHTRA)
2. N.M. INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD. M.P.
STATE OFFICE, INDIAN OIL BHAWAN, 16,
ARERA HILLS, JAIL ROAD (MADHYA
PRADESH)
3. N.M. INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD.
DIVISIONAL OFFICE PLOT NO.8, SCHEME
NO.159 (KHUSHBU THAKRE MARG) MR.10
(MADHYA PRADESH)
4. MRS. LAVLEEN GIRI GOSWAMI D/O SHRI
RAJENDRA GIRI GOSWAMI W/O ABHISHEK
GIRI C/O ABHISHEK GIRI, VIJAY NAGAR,
SHAJAPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PANKAJ
PANDEY
Signing time: 13-06-2024
12:02:06
2
(BY SHRI YOGESH KUMAR MITTAL - ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT
NOS.1 TO 3 AND SHRI SOMESH GOBHUJ - ADVOCATE FOR
RESPONDENT NO.4)
......................................................................................................
This petition coming on for admission this day, the court passed
the following:
ORDER
1] Heard finally, with the consent of the parties. 2] This petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India seeking the following reliefs:-
"It is, therefore prayed that this petition may kindly be allowed with cost and by issuing appropriate writ direction or order:-
A. That, the Respondent No-01 to 03 may kindly be directed to Cancel/withdraw the (L.O.I.) Allotment Letter dated - 25.10.2016 Annexure - P/1 Issued in favour of RespondentNo-04, in view of the terms and condition of Clause 4(VI) of the Dealership Selection Guidelines documents.
B. That, the respondents may kindly be directed to immediately issue a Fresh Advertisement for setting up retail outlet of Petrol/Diesel Station for Location mentioned at Sr. No-461, of the Advertisement, for- Viilage Panwadi towards Sarangpur on NH-03, Shajapur Distt-Shajapur.
C. Any other relief which this Hon‟ble Court may deem fit may also be kindly given to the petitioner along with cost and oblige."
3] By way of amendment dated 22.09.2021, the following reliefs have also been sought:-
"7AA. - Petition may kindly be allowed by issuance appropriate writ, order or direction by quashing impugned Letter of Intent Dt. 10.4.2017 (Annex.P/11).Signature Not Verified Signed by: PANKAJ PANDEY Signing time: 13-06-2024 12:02:06 3
7AB. - Petition may kindly be allowed by issuance appropriate writ, order or direction by quashing impugned rejection of the petitioner Dt. 25.10.2016 (Annex.R/3)."
4] In brief, the facts of the case are that on 07.07.2014, an advertisement for setting up of various retail outlets was published in daily news paper Dainik Bhaskar in which the petitioner as also the respondent No.4 applied, and on 05.12.2014 the petitioner was declared ineligible after the scrutiny of his application Form on account of non-availability of required minimum funds of Rs.25 lakhs. Whereas, on 25.10.2016, respondent No.4 was declared as selected candidate as she was the only eligible candidate for the dealership, and on the same day, the petitioner was also intimated about the rejection of his candidature to which a representation was also submitted by the petitioner on 03.11.2016, which has been rejected by the respondent vide its order dated 10.12.2016, and prior to that on 23.09.2016, the Land Evaluation Committee had also evaluated the land proposed by the respondent No.4 in her application Form. Hence, Letter of Intent was issued to the respondent No.4 on 28.01.2017.
5] The grievance of the petitioner is that the respondent No.4 has been issued the Letter of Intent in violation of terms and conditions of Clause 4(vi) of the Dealership Selection Guidelines, because the land, which the respondent No.4 had proposed at the time of submitting her application has been changed subsequently, which clearly shows that the respondent - Indian Signature Not Verified Signed by: PANKAJ PANDEY Signing time: 13-06-2024 12:02:06 4 Oil Corporation was hand in gloves with the respondent No.4. 6] A reply to the petition has also been filed by the respondents wherein it is mentioned that on 08.04.2016 an amendment came into force regarding selection policy of dealer, also allowing the change in proposed land for dealership. And in the light of the same, on 26.02.2017, an application was made by the respondent No.4 requesting to change the proposed land. Hence, on 08.03.2017, a fresh land evaluation was done by the Committee for the new proposed land by the respondent No.4, and on 10.04.2017, Addendum to LOI was also issued in favour of respondent No.4 accepting the proposal of change in land. Subsequently, on 27.12.2018, a no objection certificate under Rule 144 of the Petroleum Rules was also issued to the corporation for setting up Petrol Pump by the District Magistrate and subsequent to that, i.e., on 18.03.2019, the present petition has come to be filed. After the aforesaid reply was filed by the respondent no.1 to 3, the petition was also amended by the petitioner seeking quashment of the LOI dated 10.04.2017 (Annex.R/15) which is also filed by the petitioner as Annexure- P/11, and also his rejection letter dated 25.10.2016 (Annex.R/3) 7] Counsel appearing for the petitioner Ms. Pranjali Yajurvedi has submitted that the impugned action of the respondents in rejecting the petitioner‟s claim on the proposed retail outlet runs contrary even to the amended policy. It is also submitted that the respondents have erred in not applying the terms and conditions Signature Not Verified Signed by: PANKAJ PANDEY Signing time: 13-06-2024 12:02:06 5 of the exclusion Clause No.4 (vi) of the Dealership Guidelines Document and not properly applying the provisions of the Guidelines for allotment of retail outlets of Petrol/Diesel Stations. It is submitted that the petitioner‟s claim for allotment of the outlet has been arbitrarily rejected by the respondents with mala fide intention of allotting the same to the respondent No.4, contrary to Clause 4 (vi) of the Dealership Selection Guidelines, which provides for eligibility criteria for individual applicants regarding land.
8] It is further stated that as per the broacher for selection, Clause No.4(h), respondent No.4 covered under Group-2 category as per the land offered by her, whereas petitioner covered under Group-1 category and Clause No.4(j) specifically provides that, "in case no suitable candidate is found from group
-1, then Land evaluation would be carried out for eligible candidates under Group-2." In the present case, the land evaluation of respondent No.4 was carried out on 23.9.2016, in respect of land offered by her i.e., Khasra No.341, Gram Ukawata, District Shajapur of which one Smt. Madhu Sisodiya shown to be registered owner. Regd. Sale Deed available on the record discloses that said land was purchased by Smt. Madhu Sisodiya on 4.8.2014.
9] It is further submitted that when the respondent no.1 to 3 found that after cutoff date of submission of applications i.e. 11.8.2014, there are only two applicants i.e., petitioner and the Signature Not Verified Signed by: PANKAJ PANDEY Signing time: 13-06-2024 12:02:06 6 respondent No.4 in the selection process out of which respondent No.4 belongs to group-2 category, then they started with such modus operandi by which in case of exclusion of the petitioner, dealership can be awarded to respondent No.4 automatically or without any further hurdle and in the said process prior to sanction note Dt. 21.12.2016 (Annex.R/8), petitioner was shown to be in-eligible/ disqualified as per communication Dt. 25.10.2016 (Annex.R/3), although land evaluation of respondent No.4 was carried out prior to 25.10.2016 (Annex.R/3) which is contrary to clause 14(j) of guidelines as respondent No.4 belongs to group-2 category.
10] It is also submitted that the petitioner's disqualification vide Letter Dt. 25.10.2016 is also unsustainable, which states "you do not meet the eligibility criteria for finance (Rs.25,00,000/-)". Although when the petitioner objected to said disqualification by submitting Letter Dt. 3.11.2016 with explanation that the amount shown in the name of Kailash Soni & Dilip Soni (Father & Uncle of the petitioner) is in fact his amount, and to support the said averment, petitioner submitted affidavit of Kailash Soni & Dilip Soni. In the said letter also petitioner specifically stated about the collusion of the authorities of official respondents with private respondent, however, by communication Dt. 10.12.2016 it was informed to the petitioner that as per brochure/guideline, father & Uncle of the petitioner are not covered under the family unit and therefore, fixed deposits in their names cannot be treated to be of Signature Not Verified Signed by: PANKAJ PANDEY Signing time: 13-06-2024 12:02:06 7 petitioner.
11] It is further submitted that once the petitioner clarified the position by submitting an affidavit of the father & uncle that amount in their account belongs to the petitioner, than according to the petitioner there was no application of consideration of family unit and therefore, it is submitted that the impugned communication Dt 10.12.2016 is illegal, arbitrary and appears to have been issued just to exclude the petitioner from the array of the competition/ selection process.
12] It is also submitted that even otherwise, the land offered by the respondent No.4 cannot be said to be covered under the alternative land according to the petitioner as looking to Letter Dt. 4.10.2017, and the information supplied alongwith said letter (Page No.162 & 163), it is clear that these are the Khasra Entry of year 2018-19 of respondents No.4's alternative land which is land survey No. 853/ 1 Village Ukavata Tehsil Momen Barodiya, District Shajapur, and the last column No.12 suggests that said land is diverted on 25.10.2017 only for commercial use which means that the said land in respect of which land evaluation was made on 10.3.2017 prior to its diversion, even otherwise on the date of submission of application Dt. 11.8.2014, the said land was not available with the respondent No.4.
13] Petitioner‟s contention is that the alternative land can be said to be such land which could be available at the time of participation and since other land was available, therefore, said Signature Not Verified Signed by: PANKAJ PANDEY Signing time: 13-06-2024 12:02:06 8 land was not offered, therefore, taking into consideration the survey No. 853/1 Village Ukavata Tehsil Momen Barodiya, District Shajapur for issuance of LOI Dt. 10.04.2017 is illegal, arbitrary unjust and unfair.
14] It is also submitted that the official respondents have failed to consider that Dealer Selection Guidelines Dt. 8.4.2016, and its amendments (Annex.R/11) have no retrospective effect, meaning thereby that in the selection process which was started with advertisement on 7.7.2014, the amended selection process guidelines Dt. 8.4.2016 cannot be made applicable, and benefit granted to respondent No.4 on the basis of said guidelines is illegal, arbitrary and contrary to law.
15] In support of her submissions, counsel for the petitioner has relied upon certain decisions in the cases of Maa Binda Express Carrier and Anr. Vs. North East Frontier Railway and Ors. reported as 2014 (3) SCC 760; Common Cause, A Registered Society Vs. Union of India and others reported as (1996) 6 SCC 530; Deepak Singh Kaurav Vs. India Oil Corporation Limited passed in W.P. No.8473 of 2016 dated 11.07.2019 (Gwalior); ABL International Ltd. and another Vs. Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India Ltd. and others; reported as (2004) 3 SCC 553; Popatrao Vyankatrao Patil Vs. State of Maharashtra and others reported as (2020) 19 SCC 241; Assistant Excise Commissioner, Kottayam and others Vs. Esthappan Cherian and another reported as (2021) 10 SCC Signature Not Verified Signed by: PANKAJ PANDEY Signing time: 13-06-2024 12:02:06 9 210; P. Mahendran and others Vs. State of Karnataka and others reported as (1990) 1 SCC 411; Poddar Steel Corporation Vs. Ganesh Engineering Works and others reported as (1991) 3 SCC 273; and W.B. State Electricity Board Vs. Patel Engineering Co. Ltd. and others reported as (2001) 2 SCC 451. 16] On the other hand, Shri Yogesh Mittal, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.1 to 3 has submitted that no case for interference is made out as the petitioner was already disqualified as he was married, but mentioned his father‟s fixed deposit and uncle‟s current account as the source of finance, which was against the term of „family unit‟ of the selection brochure, and in such circumstances, the petitioner has no locus standi to challenge the selection of candidate by the respondent no.1 to 3 by selection process. Thus, it is submitted that since the petitioner was already declared ineligible for the selection process, he has no right to challenge the selection of respondent No.4 as he has become a stranger to the selection process, post his ineligibility and cannot be termed as an aggrieved person. In support of his submissions, Shri Mittal has also relied upon certain decisions in the cases of Dr. Umakant Saran Vs. State of Bihar and Ors. reported as (1973) 1 SCC 485 para 15 and Eswari Vs. Chief Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu and others reported as 2023 SCC OnLine Mad 403 para 36. 17] Counsel has also drawn the attention of this Court to the eligibility criteria as provided under clause 4 (v) of the selection Signature Not Verified Signed by: PANKAJ PANDEY Signing time: 13-06-2024 12:02:06 10 brochure as also the Clause 10 which refers to disqualification. It is also submitted that it is only when the respondents raised the objection in reply, regarding maintainability of the petition, only then the petitioner has amended the petition. It is further submitted that the respondent No.4 has changed the offered land only after she was issued the Letter of Intent, which has been accepted in terms of Selection Guidelines dated 08.04.2016 and the respondent No.4 was allowed to offer a different land and that too after the Land Evaluation Committee‟s report, the LOI was issued to her.
18] Counsel has also drawn the attention of this Court to Clause 4 of the amended Guidelines regarding opportunity to offer alternate land after selection/issuance of LOI. It is further submitted that since the respondent No.4 Smt. Lavleen Giri Goswami was the only eligible candidate for selection, hence, the Letter of Intent was issued to her on 28.01.2017 and subsequently, the addendum to LOI dated 10.04.2017, which cannot be said to be contrary to the policy or law. It is also submitted that the respondent No.4 is already running the Petrol Pump since last 6 years and thus, no interference is called for, at this juncture.
19] So far as the respondent No.4 is concerned, Shri Somesh Gobhuj, learned counsel for the respondent No.4 has also opposed the petition, and it is submitted that the respondent Indian Oil Corporation has committed no error or illegality in Signature Not Verified Signed by: PANKAJ PANDEY Signing time: 13-06-2024 12:02:06 11 awarding LOI to the respondent No.4, and also to allow the respondent No.4 to change the land for setting up the Retail Outlet Petrol Pump.
20] Counsel has submitted that the respondent No.4 had opted for change in land as per the amended Guidelines, which has been allowed by the Land Evaluation Committee in accordance with the prescribed Rules, which do not call for any interference. It is also submitted that the Retail Outlet of the respondent No.4 is already in operation since 12.11.2019 and at this juncture no case for interference is made out.
21] Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record. 22] From the record, it is apparent that the petitioner had initially challenged the LOI dated 25.10.2016, issued in favour of the respondent No.4 on the ground of violation of Clause 4(vi) of the Dealership Selection Guidelines documents and all the other grounds raised in the petition of the petitioner were also confined to the same clause, but subsequently, when the respondent No.4 was allowed to change the land for setting up of the Retail Outlet, the following reliefs were also sought:-
"7AA. - Petition may kindly be allowed by issuance appropriate writ, order or direction by quashing impugned Letter of Intent Dt. 10.4.2017 (Annex.P/11). 7AB. - Petition may kindly be allowed by issuance appropriate writ, order or direction by quashing impugned rejection of the petitioner Dt. 25.10.2016 (Annex.R/3)."
23] So far as Clause 4(vi) of the Dealership Selection Signature Not Verified Signed by: PANKAJ PANDEY Signing time: 13-06-2024 12:02:06 12 Guidelines is concerned, on which the petitioner has banked upon heavily, the relevant excerpts of the same read as under:-
"4. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR INDIVIDUAL APPLICANTS PROPRIETORSHIP/ PARTNERSHIP Common Eligibility Criteria for all Categories applying as individual (as on date of affidavit (Appendix XA) unless mentioned otherwise)
(i)..........................
(ii).......................
(iii)..........................
(iv)...............................
(v)....................................
(vi) Land (Applicable to all categories):
The applicants would be classified into two groups as mentioned below based on the land offered by them in the application form:-
Group 1: Applicants having suitable piece of land in the advertised location/area either by way of ownership / long term lease for a period of minimum __ years (as advertised by the Oil Company).
Group 2: Applicants having Firm Offer for a suitable piece of land for purchase or long term lease for a period of minimum __ years( as advertised by the concerned Oil Company). The other conditions with respect to offering of land are as under:-
a) The land should be available with the applicant as on the date of affidavit and should have minimum lease of __ years( as advertised by the concerned Oil Company) from the date or after the date of advertisement but not later than the date of affidavit.( Appendix - XA/XB)
b) If the offered land is on Long term lease, then the Lease agreement should have a provision to sub-lease the land wherever the locations are advertised under Corpus Fund Scheme (CFS), Other Corporation Owned Sites ("A"/ "CC" sites) and Company Leased sites.
For Dealer owned sites ("B"/"DC" sites), the applicant should ensure that the land arranged by the applicant is either registered in the applicant‟s name or leased in favour of the applicant for a minimum period of __ years( as advertised by the concerned Oil Signature Not Verified Signed by: PANKAJ PANDEY Signing time: 13-06-2024 12:02:06 13 Company).
c) The applicant(s) under Group-1 should furnish at least one of the following documents in support of ownership of land offered for the Dealership:-
Khasra / Khatauni or any equivalent revenue document or certificate from revenue official confirming status of the ownership of the land Registered Sale deed/Registered Gift deed Registered Lease deed for a minimum period of __ years( as advertised by the concerned Oil Company) Any other type of ownership / transfer deed document Lease agreement or firm allotment letter issued by Government / Semi Government bodies
d) The land owned by the family members (the family will comprise of the "Family Unit" as defined in Multiple dealership norm under clause 10 "Disqualification") will also be considered as belonging to the applicant subject to producing the consent letter in the form of affidavit (Appendix - V A) from the concerned member(s) of the "family unit".
e) The eligibility of the Land will be decided by Oil Company with reference to a confirmatory letter from an advocate (Appendix V B) to be arranged by the applicant.
................
(f to j are not relevant, hence, not reproduced)."
(Emphasis Supplied) 24] The petitioner‟s contention is that the aforesaid provisions of Clause 4(vi) has not been properly complied with as the respondent Nos.1 to 3, Indian Oil Corporation have allowed the respondent No.4 to change the land offered by her in the application form, which is not at all permissible as per the Retail Outlet Guidelines. The petitioner‟s other contention is that he is also entitled to be treated as an eligible candidate after he submitted the affidavit that the amount lying in the fixed deposits in the account of his father Kailash Soni and uncle Dilip Soni are Signature Not Verified Signed by: PANKAJ PANDEY Signing time: 13-06-2024 12:02:06 14 in fact his amount and thus, his affidavit ought to have been considered on its face value and his eligibility ought not to have been rejected.
25] So far as the amended guidelines are concerned, the respondents have averred that the publication of initial dealership selection guidelines was made on 21.05.2014, and amendments and modalities for implementation of amendments was introduced in the selection guidelines and that has been forwarded to the field officers of the Corporation for its implementation as "Dealer Selection Guidelines note to field 08.04.2016", which permits the acceptance of alternative offered land by the candidate, due to whatsoever reason, to be considered for evaluation as alternate land, where the land offered by the candidate in the application meets all the specifications as let down in the advertisement and on the basis of which letter of intent has been issued or proposed to be issued. 26] So far as the amended guidelines are concerned, the relevant excerpt of the same reads as under:-
"4. Opportunity to offer alternative land after selection/issuance of LOI Existing Amended Provision Guidelines The land offered by the Where the land offered by the applicant at the time of candidate in the application application cannot be meets all the specifications as changed except in cases laid down in the advertisement where statutory approvals and on the basis of which LOI could not be obtained. has been issued or proposed to be issued, in such cases, if the LOI holder or the candidate to Signature Not Verified Signed by: PANKAJ PANDEY Signing time: 13-06-2024 12:02:06 15 whom LOI is proposed to be issued would like to offer an alternate land, due to whatsoever reason, such land may be considered by OMC subject to the alternate land meets all specifications and is within the advertised location.
(Emphasis supplied) 27] A perusal of the aforesaid amended guideline would clearly reveal that it is applicable to those candidates, who have already been issued the Letter of Intent or proposed to be issued and in such cases, if the LOI holder or the candidate to whom LOI is proposed to be issued would like to offer an alternate land, due to whatsoever reason, such land may be considered by OMC, subject to the alternate land meets all specifications and is within the advertised location. A report of the Land Evaluation Committee is also placed on record, which confirmed that the land offered by the petitioner is as per their specification. 28] So far as the contention of the petitioner that the land was diverted subsequently and not prior to the issuance of the original advertisement dated 07.07.2014, this Court finds that in the brochure for selection of Dealers for Regular and Rural Retail Outlets, it is nowhere provided that the land should be diverted land, and what is provided is that the land should be available with the applicant as on the date of affidavit. Thus, the contention of the petitioner cannot be accepted and is hereby rejected. 29] So far as the petitioner‟s contention that he was also eligible Signature Not Verified Signed by: PANKAJ PANDEY Signing time: 13-06-2024 12:02:06 16 after he submitted an affidavit to the effect that the F.Ds. lying in his father and uncle‟s account belong to him, is of no avail at this stage as filing of such an affidavit has not been provided in the brochure of eligibility criteria. So far as the eligibility criteria for individual applicants and their disqualification in Clause 4 (v) and 10 are concerned, the relevant excerpts of the same read as under:-
"4. Eligibility Criteria For Individual Applicants - Proprietorship Partnership
(v) Finance:
In respect of "Finance" parameter as indicated above the ownership of finance by any member of the "family unit" (as defined under Multiple dealership norms in Clause 10-
"Disqualification‟) will be considered as belonging to the applicant subject to producing consent letter(s) in the form of affidavit (Appendix -IV) from the concerned member of the "family unit"
for funds availability as mentioned in Clause 10 of the Application form (Appendix - XI A).
xxxxxxx
10. DISQUALIFICATION "Family Unit" In case of married applicant, shall consent of individual concerned, his/her Spouse and unmarried son(s)/daughter(s). In case of unmarried person/applicant, "Family Unit" shall consist of individual concerned, his/her parents and his/her unmarried brother(s) and unmarried sister(s)." 30] Admittedly, the petitioner is married and thus, his family unit would comprise of his/her spouse and unmarried son(s)/daughter(s), and in such circumstances, the petitioner cannot claim that the amount, which is lying in the account of his father and uncle, belongs to him, and by merely filing of an affidavit would not suffice. Accordingly, the aforesaid contention is also rejected.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: PANKAJ PANDEY Signing time: 13-06-2024 12:02:06 1731] So far as the decision in the case Maa Binda Express Carrier and another (supra) is concerned, which has been relied upon by the counsel for the petitioner to submit that the terms of the contract cannot be tailor-made, but it should flow from the contract, is concerned, this Court finds that in the present case a general amendment has been made in the advertisement which would be applicable to all the persons concerned and it is found that so far as the advertisement dated 07.07.2014 is concerned, there are as many as 634 locations advertised for the allotment of the Petrol Pump, and in such circumstances, it is difficult to believe that merely to benefit the respondent No.4 herein, such a policy decision would be taken by the respondent Nos.1 to 3. Thus, the aforesaid decision is clearly distinguishable.
32] So far as the retrospective effect of the amendment in the advertisement is concerned, regarding which the petitioner has relied upon the decisions in the cases of Assistant Excise Commissioner Kottayam (supra); P. Mahendran and Ors. (supra) Poddar Steel Corporation (supra) and W. B. State Electricity Board (supra), it is found that the amendment in the Guidelines was a policy decision and was not made to benefit or to ouster any particular person. Apart from that, it is also not the case of the petitioner that had the amendment been earlier introduced, he could also have been found to be eligible, and in such circumstances, the aforesaid decisions are also of no avail to Signature Not Verified Signed by: PANKAJ PANDEY Signing time: 13-06-2024 12:02:06 18 the petitioner, also taking note of the fact that the respondent No.4 was already found to be eligible even prior to the amendments. Thus, no prejudice is caused to the petitioner. 33] So far as the decisions relied upon by the counsel for the respondent Nos.1 to 3 in the cases of Dr. Umakant Saran (supra) and Chief Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu and others (supra) are concerned, this Court is also of the considered opinion that the aforesaid decisions would also not help the respondents in their contention that the petitioner has no locus because he was not selected and thus was not an aggrieved person and cannot seek the writ of mandamus and certiorari, because this Court has already held that since the petitioner has also challenged his own disqualification, he cannot be said to be a person, who has no locus to file the present petition.
34] In view of the same, no case for interference is made out. The petition being devoid of merits, is hereby dismissed.
(SUBODH ABHYANKAR) JUDGE Pankaj Signature Not Verified Signed by: PANKAJ PANDEY Signing time: 13-06-2024 12:02:06