DHARAM SINGH YADAV Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenge is made to the legality, validity and proprietary of award of marks dated 13/1/2012 (Annexure P/1) to the petitioner under various heads by the Selection Committee and communication of rejection of candidature of the petitioner dated 28/5/2012 (Annexure P/2) in the matter of allotment of retail outlet dealership.

(2.) BY the impugned communication it is informed that petitioner is awarded "0" marks for the land and also "0" marks under some more heads viz. experience and for fixed and movable assets by the Grievance Redressal Forum vide its order dated 28/5/2012 while deciding the petitioner's representation in compliance of order of this Court dated 24/4/2012 passed in W.P. No. 1079/2012. By the aforesaid communication it was informed that during investigation it was found that land offered by the petitioner falls on State Highway No. 2; whereas, location was advertised for Hamara Pump and Hamara Pump cannot be put on State Highway, rejection of site is in line with the guidelines. Further as per documents provided a 33 KV line exists at a distance of 52 metres from the centre of the road and version of the petitioner that land is situated at a distance of 30 metres from the centre of the road, in such an event the 33KV line shall pass over the land offered, and therefore, such land is not suitable as per the guidelines for installation of retail outlet dealership. The proposal of the availability of land was rejected.

(3.) RESPONDENTS No. 2 and 3 have filed counter affidavit and denied the averments made in the petition. It is submitted that as per the guidelines for selection of retail outlet dealership, the duly constituted experts committee, on 17/12/2011 conducted inspection of the land offered by the petitioner and found that from centre point of State Highway No. 2 a 33 KV electric line is passing. This report is duly signed by the petitioner. Hence, the contention of the petitioner that spot inspection ought to have been conducted is in fact and in effect factually incorrect and misconceived. It is submitted that petitioner was present on spot on 17/12/2011 and duly signed the spot inspection report.