R REVATHI Vs. GOVERNMENT OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner prays for the issue of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records of the third respondent relating to the paper publication dated 16.7.2000 inviting fresh application for the grant of Dealership in respect of retail outlet at Pondicherry, Chennai-17, to quash the same and consequentially direct respondents 2 to 4 to conduct selection on the basis of the applications received up to 23.3.1999 pursuant to the earlier publication and to grant dealership to the petitioner.

(2.) According to the petitioner, she belongs to Scheduled Tribe community. With the hope of stabilising herself and her family, she was making repeated applications for dealership of petrol bunks. The third respondent invited application for the grant of dealership in respect of outlet at Pondy Bazar, Chennai, and the application forms were to be submitted to the third respondent on 22.3.1999. The petitioner applied and submitted the application form on 22.3.1999. She satisfied all the conditions which were prescribed. However, no interview was conducted pursuant to the said application. Subsequently, there was a change in the Government in the Centre and after the assumption of the Office by the present Government, applications were invited afresh. Respondents 2 and 3 are bound to process the applications which were submitted in March, 1999 within a reasonable time. But the respondents, only with a view to enable the persons of their choice who had not applied earlier to be selected, had again invited fresh applications in July, 2000 for the very same petrol bunk. The action of the respondents inviting fresh applications was without any proper reason. Though the petitioner could have challenged the said action as arbitrary, however with the hope that the selection will be held in a fair and proper manner, she did not challenge the same, but obtained new application form and applied afresh. She was called for interview on 21.11.2000. According to the petitioner, the interview was made a mere formality and an eye-wash. On 22.11.2000, the fourth respondent published a list of shortlisted candidates showing the names of Narayanaswamy (5th respondent), Padmini (6th respondent), and Vinod Kumar (7th respondent) as shortlisted candidates. The petitioner states that all the said applicants are only fresh applicants who did not apply earlier. The final candidate had not been announced on the date of filing of the writ petition. According to the petitioner, the entire exercise was motivated only for the purpose of paving way for choosing friends of the new Government. The selection lacks transparency and there was no proper evaluation system. The selection was arbitrary and capricious and the respondents were predetermined and had also fixed the candidate to be selected. The action of the respondents was vitiated and tainted by mala fides.

(3.) Subsequently in W.M.P.No.2200 of 2001, the petitioner sought for impleadment of respondents 5 to 7 being the shortlisted candidates and the 8th respondent who is the husband of the sixth respondent and is also a Member of Parliament. Notice was issued to the said respondents and separate counters have been filed by respondents 6 and 8 in the petition for impleadment as well as in the writ petition and the petition is being allowed. It may be stated here that the sixth respondent had been declared as a successful candidate. The allegation in the impleadment petition is that the sixth respondent being the wife of the 8th respondent, a Member of Parliament, had been shown favouritism and selected with the active connivance and instructions of respondents 1 to 3. It is further stated that the sixth respondent has not properly specified the income criteria namely, that the annual income of the candidate and the spouse should not exceed Rs.2,00,000/- per annum and that the income of both of them would be much more than the prescribed limit.