Madras High Court
G.Bibin Gnanakumar vs Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd on 9 July, 2014
Author: T.S.Sivagnanam
Bench: T.S.Sivagnanam
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Dated : 09.07.2014 Coram THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM W.P.(MD)No.10261 of 2014 and M.P.(MD) Nos.1 and 2 of 2014 G.Bibin Gnanakumar .. Petitioner Vs 1.Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd., (A Government of India Enterprise) Rep. By its Managing Director, Having Registered Office at No.17, Jamshedji Tata Road, Mumbai - 400 020. 2.The Senior Regional Manager, Hisdustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd., 'Petro Bhavan' 3rd Floor, New No.82, Old No.47, T.T.K.Road, Alwerpet, Chennai - 600 018. 3.The Regional Manager, Hisdustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd., Plot No.171-172, SIDCO Industrial Estate, Kappalur, Madurai - 625 008. .. Respondents Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, Calling for the record pertaining to the impugned order passed by the 2nd respondent in Ref.No.CHNLRO/AVK/LPG-RGGLV- 11-12, dated 31.05.2014, quash the same and direct the respondents to grant Rajiv Gandhi Gramin LPG Vitrak (RGGLV) distributorship agency for Midalam village to the petitioner. !For Petitioner : Mr.R.Subramanian ^For Respondents : Mr.M.Sridher :ORDER
In this writ petition, the petitioner seeks for issuance of a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to quash the proceedings of the second respondent dated 31.05.2014 and grant LPG distributorship agency to him for Midalam village.
2.The respondent oil Corporation called for applications for award of LPG distributorship in a scheme called Rajiv Gandhi Gramin LPG Vitrak (RGGLV) distributorship by issuing a paper notification on 29.05.2013. The petitioner applied for grant of such distributorship by an application dated 03.07.2013. The application was processed and the petitioner was found to be qualified for draw of selection of distributorship and was directed to be present with the photo identity card on 25.01.2014. Thereafter, the respondent by proceedings dated 25.01.2014 directed the petitioner to remit a sum of Rs.20,000/- i.e. 10% of the security deposit of Rs.2,00,000/- with three working days, after which filed verification of the selected candidates will be undertaken. The petitioner remitted the said award and thereafter, the Officers of the respondent Corporation conducted field verification as per the norms and passed an order on 31.05.2014, rejecting the petitioner's application assigning three reasons. Challenging the same, the petitioner has filed this writ petition.
3.Mr.R.Subramaniam, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned order is arbitrary and unreasonable and liable to be set aside, as it is vitiated on account of the non application of mind. It is further submitted that the paper publication dated 29.05.2013 was issued in respect of Midalam revenue village and the said revenue village has now been divided into four villages and the respondent, without verifying the certificate issued by the revenue officials, proceeded to reject the petitioner's application. Further the learned counsel for the petitioner by referring to the sale deed dated 29.06.1990 registered as Document No.856/1990 on the file of the Sub Registrar, Karungal submitted that the property in question is the petitioner's ancestral property and it is situated in the Midalam village and the petitioner is fully eligible. Further the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in the encumbrance certificate as well as the certificate issued by the Sub Registrar, Karungal, the property has been described as it is in Midalam village and the Headquarters Deputy Tahsildar, Vilavancode Taluk has also certified that the petitioner is the resident of the said village. Therefore, it is submitted that the first reason assigned in the impugned order is not sustainable.
4.As regards the second reason for rejection regarding the dimension of the land, the petitioner, by referring to a surveyor report, submitted that the land provided by the petitioner satisfies the dimensional requirement and therefore, the second ground of rejection also itself erroneous.
5.Further, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that it is wrong to state that there was no approach road to the land in S.No.555 and the land is situated near the main road and there is sufficient approach road to the said property and therefore, the three reasons assigned in the impugned order are not tenable.
6.Mr.M.Sridher, the learned counsel for the respondent, relying upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Basavaiah (Dr.) Vs. Dr.H.L.Ramesh and others reported in (2010)8 Supreme Court Cases 372 and the decision in the case of Sanjeesh Babu K. Vs. N.K.Santhose and others reported in 2013-2 L.W. 193 and the decision of this Court in W.P.No.28957 of 2011 dated 30.01.2011, submitted that the scope of interference of this Court in the matter of grant of dealership is very narrow and the Court should show deference and consideration to the recommendation of an Expert Committee in the field and in the absence of any allegation of malafide, it is normally wise and safe for the Court to leave the decision of selection of this nature to the experts, who are more familiar with technicalities/nature of the work.
7.On merits, the learned counsel submitted that the scheme viz., RGGLVY is to cater to the demand of domestic LPG consumers in the rural markets and the cylinders are supplied on a cash on carry basis and not delivered in the residence of the consumers.
8.It is further submitted that a joint industry advertisement was issued on 29.05.2013 inviting applications from eligible persons for various villagers in Tamilnadu including Midalam village which is situated in Vilavancode Taluk, Kanyakumari District. The petitioner's application was scrutinized by the Scrutiny and Evaluation Committee, who evaluates the eligibility with respect to the application fee, serial number of all pages, annexures and awarded marks as per the norms fixed in the eligibility criteria by assessing the documents for the land, residence certificate educational qualification etc. It is further submitted that it is true that the petitioner was one of the eligible candidates and was drawn in the draw held on 25.01.2014 and thereafter, field verification test was conducted and the candidature was rejected assigning three reasons. It is submitted that the reasons assigned are proper, just and fair and the persons who had applied in the same area, have given a clear description stating that they belong to either Midalam (A) or Midalam (B) village and though the petitioner was aware of the bifurcation, he did not furnish true and correct particulars. Further, it is submitted that the petitioner's application was not rejected on the ground of residence qualification, but, on the ground that the land offered by him is situated in Karungal village and not in Midalam village. Further as per the field verification report, the dimensions are not adequate as required and there is no approach road shown by the petitioner. Therefore, it is submitted that the impugned order is perfectly valid and called for no interference.
9.Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
10.At the first instance, this Court has to consider the aspect regarding the jurisdiction of this Court to go into the selection process. In the instant case, there is no specific allegation of malafide against the respondent Corporation or its officials. In such circumstances, the legal position which has been decided in series of decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court are referred to here.
"The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sanjeesh Babu, referred supra, while considering the correctness of a decision of the High Court of Kerala pertaining to application of candidate for selection to Bharat Gas Distributorship by placing reliance on an earlier decision in the case of Basavaiah (Dr.) vs. Dr.H.L.Ramesh & Ors., reported in (2010) 8 SCC 372, pointed out that it is a settled legal position that Courts have to show deference and considerations to the recommendations of an expert committee consisting of distinguished experts in the field, when there is no allegation of malafides, it would normally be wise and safe for the Courts to leave the decision of selection of this nature to the experts, who are more familiar with the technicalities/nature of the work. The Expert Committee having evaluated the experience certificate produced by the candidate, interviewed him by putting specific questions as to direct sale, home delivered products, hospitality/service industry etc., and awarded marks, the High Court ought not to have sat as an appellate Court on the recommendations made by the Expert Committee. It was further held that the High Court was not justified in upsetting the decision of the Selection Committee, particularly in the absence of any malafides against the Selection Committee and there is no warrant for direction to reassess the marks of the appellant therein afresh. In the light of the detailed explanation offered by the corporation about the mode of selection."
11.This Court proceeds to examine the contentions raised by the petitioner bearing in mind the aforementioned legal principles.
12.The first reason assigned for rejection is that the land offered by the petitioner is not situated in Midalam village. The petitioner would state that the notification dated 29.05.2013 published in the daily newspapers was a re- notification and the original notification was much earlier and as on the said date, the Midalam village was not bifurcated and it was a single revenue village and the bifurcation occurred only on 26.03.2013 i.e. nearly two months before the re-notification.
13.Admittedly on the date of the consideration of the application, Midalam village has been bifurcated into four villages viz., Midalam (A) Midalam (B), Karungal and Mathicode. The petitioner offered the land in S.No.555. On the date when the petitioner submitted his application, the land offered by him was not in Midalam village, but was in Karungal village, since his application is dated 03.07.2013, much after the bifurcation which was done on 26.03.2013. Therefore, the petitioner ought to have disclosed this fact. Failure to disclose would definitely warrant rejection of the application. The petitioner relied upon the certificate of the Sub Registrar, Karungal, copy of the encumbrance certificate and a certificate issued by Headquarters Deputy Tahsildar, Vilavancode. However, the copy of the patta No.13614 which was filed by the petitioner along with the application shows the land in S.No.555/18 D, is situated in Karungal village. The said patta along with the application shows the land offered by the petitioner is in Karungal village and not in Midalam village and the petitioner is estopped from taking a different stand at this distance point of time. Therefore, the first reason assigned in the impugned order is fully justified and warrant no interference.
14.As regards the reason Nos.2 and 3 namely the dimensional requirements and the approach road, the petitioner, at the time of visit by the field verification officers, was miserably failed to prove that the land satisfies the dimensional requirements as per the notification. Furthermore, the petitioner is said to have not co-operated with the verification team in showing the access to the said land. Further, the stand taken by the petitioner that he has entered into a sale agreement for purchasing the adjoining land has not been established before the concerned authority. In that view of the matter, this Court cannot substitute its view with regard to the dimensional requirements or other requirements which the respondent Corporation have stipulated in the notification. That apart, the other applicants who also hail from the same area have clearly specified the village name after its bifurcation.
15.In such circumstances no relief can be granted to the petitioner. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are also dismissed.
To
1.Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd., (A Government of India Enterprise) Rep. By its Managing Director, Having Registered Office at No.17, Jamshedji Tata Road, Mumbai - 400 020.
2.The Senior Regional Manager, Hisdustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd., 'Petro Bhavan' 3rd Floor, New No.82, Old No.47, T.T.K.Road, Alwerpet, Chennai - 600 018.
3.The Regional Manager, Hisdustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd., Plot No.171-172, SIDCO Industrial Estate, Kappalur, Madurai - 625 008.