Punjab-Haryana High Court
M/S Shree Gomukh Marketing Pvt. Ltd vs Hindustan Petroleum Company Limited on 16 September, 2008
Author: Hemant Gupta
Bench: Hemant Gupta, Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia
CWP No. 15681 of 2007 (1)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CWP No. 15681 of 2007
Date of Decision: 16.9.2008
M/s Shree Gomukh Marketing Pvt. Ltd. ......Petitioner
Versus
Hindustan Petroleum Company Limited, Panipat and another
.....Respondents
Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA
Present: Shri Sudhanshu Makkar, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Shri J.S. Toor, Advocate, for respondent No.1.
Shri Vinod S. Bhardwaj, Advocate, for respondent No.2.
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the
judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
HEMANT GUPTA, J.
The petitioner has challenged the grant of Letter of Intent in favour of respondent No.2 vide order dated 1.6.2007 (Annexure P.13).
In pursuance of the advertisement published in Dainik Bhasker dated 13.7.2005, the petitioner as well as respondent NO.2 applied for retail outlet dealership of the petrol pump. At Serial No. 52, site was Jhumpa, between Km Stone 238 upto Rajasthan Border, Distt. Bhiwani, Cat. OP. In respect of such category, the minimum requirement of land was 2.2 acres. In the interview for the purposes of grant of retail outlet dealership held on 10.11.2005, respondent No.2 was ranked first, whereas the rank of the petitioner was 4th. However, one Ram Singh, who ranked 2nd in the interview aforesaid, made a complaint before the CWP No. 15681 of 2007 (2) Grievance Redressal Mechanism and it was decided to hold a fresh interview. A fresh interview was conducted on 2.11.2006. In such interview, respondent No.2 ranked first, whereas, the petitioner slided to 5th rank. It may be mentioned that respondent No.2 has filed a civil suit. Vide order dated 28.10.2006, the learned trial Court ordered that the result of the interview be withheld. However, the application for ad- interim application was dismissed on 12.5.2007 and thereafter the result was declared.
The grievance of the petitioner is that the land required was 2.2 acres. Respondent No.2 does not possess the said area of land and therefore, the decision to grant Letter of Intent to the said respondent is against the terms advertised.
In reply, respondent No.1 has stated that in the interview held on 2.11.2006, selection was done without considering 35 marks for land and infrastructure as the land offered by all the candidates has been rejected during fresh technical inspection of the site after cancellation of the earlier selection held on 10.11.2005. Such decision was in line with the Dealers Selection Guidelines as contained in the letter dated 26.4.2005. Thus, it is argued that the petitioner has no cause to dispute the decision taken in pursuance of the interview held on 2.11.2006. In any case, the petitioner ranks lower in the merit list. The chart reflecting marks in the interview held on 10.11.2005 and 2.11.2006 shows that various parameters have been considered by the Selection Board to determine the inter-se merit. In both the selection processes, respondent No.2 is at serial No. 1, whereas the petitioner is at No.4 in the first selection process and last in the second selection process. This Court while exercising the power of judicial review, will not examine the marks given to each candidate for allotment of a commercial venture i.e. a retail outlet. It is for the Oil Company to see its business CWP No. 15681 of 2007 (3) interest and to award Letter of Intent keeping in view its policies. Since all the relevant parameters have been taken into consideration, we do not find that the decision to grant the Letter of Intent to respondent No.2 is so arbitrary or unreasonable, which requires interference by this Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction.
Hence, the present writ petition is dismissed.
(HEMANT GUPTA) JUDGE (KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA) JUDGE 16-09-2008 ds