CHINMOY SARKAR Vs. MD SHANIAT HOSSAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These three appeals arise out of a writ petition instituted by one Md.Shaniat Hossain, hereinafter called "the Writ Petitioner", seeking a writ against the appellants not to give effect or further effect to the Letter of Intent dated December 23, 1987 (Ann. 'C' to the Writ Petition) issued by the Hindusthan Petroleum Corporation Limited, hereinafter called "the Corporation" in favour of one Shri Chinmay Sarkar, hereinafter called "Sarkar", for the proposed Retail Outlet Dealership at Daulia, District Midnapore. The Writ Petition was allowed by the Trial Court by its judgment rendered on August 18, 1989. The said Letter of Intent was quashed and a direction was issued, amongst others, to the Oil Selection Board (East), hereinafter called "the Board", to make a fresh selection on the basis of materials available to them including the Enquiry Report and in accordance with law. F.M.A.T. No. 2682 of 1989 is preferred by Sarkar, F.M.A.T. No. 2697 of 1989 is preferred by the Board and F.M.A.T. No. 2889 of 1989 is preferred by the Corporation. Since common questions of law and fact are involved in all the three companion matters, they have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

(2.) In order to appreciate the points in dispute, a few facts require To be stated. The Corporation is a wholly-owned Government Company carrying on business in Petroleum Products. The Board is an independent authority constituted by the Oil Industry in consultation with the Ministry of Petroleum for the purpose of selection of candidates for the Dealership/Distributorship of the Public Sector Oil Companies within its jurisdiction including the Corporation. The Board consists of two members a retired High Court Judge and a retired Civil Servant. On December 14, 1985 an advertisement was published by the Corporation inviting applications from persons belonging to the unemployed graduate category for retail dealership in Petroleum Products at Daulia, District Midnapore. The Writ Petitioner and Sarkar were amongst the applicants and their applications along with those of others were forwarded to the Board by the Corporation after preliminary scrutiny on May 30, 1986. On September 11, 1987 the Board interviewed nine applicants including the Writ Petitioner and Sarkar. Pursuant to the interview a panel consisting of three candidates was prepared for the purposes of further investigation. Sarkar and the Writ Petitioner were placed on the said panel at serial Nos. 1 and 2. One Gautam Kr. Pal was the third person to be empanelled but he does not appear to be interested in the present litigation. As per the usual policy or practice, a Field Investigation was carried out by the Corporation and the report of such investigation was submitted to the Board on November 25, 1987. After considering the materials on record including the Field Investigation Report, the Board prepared a panel according to merit and forwarded the same to the Corporation on December 9, 1987. The panel consisted of Sarkar, the Writ Petitioner and Gautam Kumar Pal the names having been arranged in the said order of merit. Pursuant to the receipt of the panel, the impugned Letter of Intent was issued by the Corporation to Sarkar on December 23, 1987.

(3.) On October 5, 1988, the writ petition out of which these appeals arise was moved before the Trial Court seeking the reliefs aforementioned. Rule Nisi was issued on the same day and the respondents were restrained by an ad-interim order from giving effect or further effect to the impugned Letter of Intent and/or from selecting/ appointing Sarkar or any other person as Dealer for the Retail Outlet at Daulia. The Writ Petition was hotly contested. The Corporation, Board and Sarkar filed affidavits-in-opposition and the Writ Petitioner filed affidavits-in-reply. At the hearing of the Writ Petition the original records of the Board were produced for the perusal of the Trial Court. Upon gleaning the records including the Field Investigation Report the Trial Court recorded the following finding: xx xx xx xx xx xx