ARUN DAGADU MEDEKAR Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is challenging the distribution of dealership of LPG/sko/ldo to various candidates by the Oil Selection Board in pursuance of the advertisements, issued by the Hindusthan Petroleum Corporation, indian Oil Corporation and India-Burma Petroleum Co. , in the year 1993.

(2.) The distribution of dealership of petroleum products has given rise to controversy on several occasions. In the present case, the petitioner, who belongs to "gadilohar" caste which is included in Nomadic Tribe category, unsuccessfully contested for securing State largesse on as many as 15 occasions. Finally he made last attempt in response to advertisement dated 29-7-1993, issued by the Indo Burma Petroleum Company, for getting agency at Soyegaon dist. Aurangabad, the advertisement dated 30th November, 1993 published by the Hindusthan Petroleum Corporation Limited, Pune, for retail outlet at aurangabad and Jalna : and third advertisement published by Indian Oil corporation Limited on 22-9-1993 for retail outlet at Gangapur Dist. Aurangabad. In the advertisements itself, conditions of eligibility are mentioned, including the condition that the candidate should have five years residence in the concerned area, where the outlet is to be established and should not have income exceeding Rs. 50,000. The selection of allottees was to be made by the Oil selection Board, comprising of three Members, one of which is the retired High court Judge. In the present case, Justice P. Dayal, was the Chairman : Shri R. S. Nautiyal and Shri Naresh Pugalia, Members of the Selection Board. The Board held interviews of the candidates on 19th and 20th September, 1995 in Hotel fariyas, at Colaba Bombay. To avoid possible controversy, the list of the selected candidates is published immediately after the interview. However, in the present case, the Board published the list of the candidates two months after the interview i. e. on 20th November, 1995, thereby selecting 39 persons for dealership/distributorship/agency, at various places in the State of Maharashtra.

(3.) During the course of interview from the questions put to him, the petitioner formed an impression that the selection is to be based on extraneous consideration. This is confirmed by the fact that out of 39 candidates, 18 to 20 candidates from the list are either relatives or protegees of the political bigwigs; whereas rest of the candidates represent affluent section of the society. The list prima facie, shows that favour is shown to the relatives of the influential political heavyweights and decision is taken on account of political pressure exerted on the Members of the Board. Apart from kith and kin of MPs and MLAs, dealership is also awarded to Mr. Avinash Agrawal, who is related to one of the members of the Board, namely, Shri Naresh Pugalia; and to Rajkumar phoolchand Jain, who is a protegee of another Member of the Board Shri R. S. Nautiyal. Respondents 4 to 7 do not fulfil the eligibility criteria as their near relatives are already having dealership and their income exceeds the permissible limits of Rs. 50,000. The petitioner claims that the list is an outcome of mala fides and arbitrariness shown by the Oil Selection Board. On this premise, the petitioner seeks to quash and set aside the said list. He further seeks a direction to the Oil Selection Board to award dealership in his favour for Aurangabad District as he fulfils all the conditions of eligibility and belongs to Scheduled Tribe.