K INDUKUMAR Vs. G M RAVINDRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AS per Chief Justice, Appellant-Respondent No. 7- K. lndukumar, has filed this Writ Appeal against the order passed in W. P. No. 31997 / 2001 dated 2. 03. 2002, whereby the learned Single Judge directed to withdrawthe letter of intent issued to him and also to issue letter on intent in favour of the candidate next in the merit list made by the Dealer selection Board as per Annexure-'c'.

(2.) THE necessary facts for the disposal of this appeal are that bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. , (for short, "bpcl") re-published annexure-A, an advertisement/notification inviting applications for dealership to set up a retail outlet (petrol pump) at Chennapatna through local news paper on 24. 8. 2000. The appellant along with others applied for dealership. Sixteen persons were short listed including the appellant. The Selection Board conducted the interview, made a list and submitted its recommendation vide order dated 29. 03. 2001 giving names of the appellant, respondent No. 1 and respondent No. 6 in the list of merit. Considering the recommendation, a letter of intent was issued to the selected candidates on 30. 04. 2001 with various terms and conditions. The appellant's name was first in the merit list vide Annexure-C. A proposal catalogue was also issued vide Annexure-R. According to condition No. 16 in the catalogue, the dealer should transfer the land on ownership/long lease to BPCL. The dealer should also make available a suitable plot of land within a period of two months from the date of the letter i. e, 20. 04. 2001, after getting suitable clearance from the BPCL. There is also a condition that the dealer should transfer the land on ownership/long lease for a minimum period of 30 years with one renewal option for next 5 years. It is further stated that in case the dealer fails to make available the suitable land within two months, the offer would be withdrawn. It is stated that after certifying that the appellant had complied with condition No. 16, the BPCL granted the dealership. The grant of dealership was challenged by the 1st respondent-petitioner, G. M. Ravindra, the next in the merit list, in the above Writ Petition.

(3.) THE respondents filed their detail counter stating that the Writ Petition is not maintainable and also stated that on merits the order needs no interference. The learned Single Judge after hearing the parties found that the BPCL cannot sit in judgment over the direction issued by the Dealer Selection Board and also found that respondent-7 (appellant herein) had not fulfilled condition No. 16. As he had not complied with the instructions as contained in annexure-R, the learned Single Jungle issued directions as stated above. Hence, the Writ Appeal.