MANU PRASAD V. Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ petition has been filed praying to cancel a dealership of 2nd respondent which was allotted to the third respondent and for a direction to the second respondent to allot dealership with respect to the retail outlets in resurvey No.298/3 in Mulliyur Village in Kasaragod District after inviting applications from the eligible candidates.

(2.) Heard Sri. P.Sreekumar on behalf of the petitioner and Sri. M.Gopikrishnan Nambiar, Standing Counsel for the second respondent.

(3.) The grievance of the petitioner, who claims to be an unemployed person, is that the second respondent is allotting petroleum retail outlet without following the procedures prescribed. According to the petitioner, the second respondent had taken a site on lease in Mulliyur Village in Kasaragod District and has allotted the dealership of the petroleum outlet to the third respondent without inviting any application for allotment of dealership. It is submitted that the petitioner had obtained the details of the allotment process under the Right to Information Act and the same has been produced as Ext.P1. As per Ext.P1, the dealership granted to the third respondent is on an ad hoc basis which does not require inviting applications. Ext.P2 guidelines have been produced by the petitioner stating that the Unit established is a 'COCO Unit' (Company Owned and Company Operated). Ext.P3 guidelines issued by the first respondent has also been produced. The contention of the petitioner is that going by Exts.P2 and P3, the second respondent was bound to invite applications from eligible candidates for the grant of dealership and having not done so, the dealership is liable to be cancelled.