MUKTAR HUSSAIN SON OF MD RAJAB ALI Vs. INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED IOCL REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ petitioner, who was one of the applicants for awarding the LPG Distributorship under Indian Oil Corporation Limited (IOCL) at Lahorighat in the district of Morigaon, Assam, has filed this application praying for a direction to the respondent/IOCL to issue the letter of intent in his favour pursuant to the select list/evaluation statement dated 17th July, 2009 prepared and published by the Selection Committee constituted for selection of candidate for appointment of LPG Distributorship and not to accept the bank statement as well as other bank documents submitted by the respondent No. 5 and reevaluate the marks allotted by the first L-1 Committee and also not to declare the result of selection on the basis of the re-evaluation made pursuant to the complaint dated 28th July, 2009 lodged by the respondent No. 5. The facts relevant for the purpose of disposal of this writ petition may be noticed as under: -

(2.) I have heard Mr. AD Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner; Mr. MK Choudhury, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 and Mr. P Khataniar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 5.

(3.) It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondent IOCL having formulated the policy circular dated 11th February, 2004 stipulating the time limit for dealing with the complain, if any, lodged by any candidate relating to the selection of any candidate for appointment as the Distributor, the same has to be adhered to, as they cannot allowed to be deviated therefrom. According to the learned counsel, in the case in hand, the complain by the respondent No. 5 was lodged on 28th July, 2009 and though under the policy circular dated 11th February, 2004, the investigation is required to be made by the Investigating Officer within 7(seven) months from the date of nomination, the Investigating Officer submitted the report much beyond the period prescribed, thereby violating Clause-3.4 of the said policy circular. It has also been submitted that Clause-5.0 of the said circular also provides for deciding the complain within 3(three) weeks from the date of receipt of the report of investigation and in the instant case, the re-evaluation having been made on 13th January, 2011, the time limit has not been adhered to, though required. The learned counsel, therefore, submits that there is infraction of the policy circular relating to the time limit fixed for disposal of the complain and hence, the process for revaluation, on the basis of the complain filed by the respondent No. 5, needs to be interfered with. 5. Mr. A.D. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the process for re-evaluation of the marks awarded by the L-1 Committee has been initiated by the respondent authorities on the basis of the complain filed by the respondent No. 5 on 28th July, 2009 alleging non awarding of marks under the head "capability to provide finance" for non submission of statement of accounts and other bank documents. According to the learned counsel, the advertisement dated 26th February, 2008 as well as the guideline to the applicants and also the declaration required to be signed by an applicant clearly provides for furnishing the required bank statement and banks document in support of the information furnished by the applicant relating to "capability to provide finance", which documents, in the event of non furnishing alongwith the application, cannot be accepted after submission of such application, as has been done in the instant case. It has been submitted that since the respondent No. 5 did not submit the bank statement as well as other bank documents in support of the information furnished under the head "capability to provide finance", the L-1 Committee had rightly not awarded the marks under the said head to the respondent No. 5 and the defect of non furnishing the document entails rejection of the application filed by the respondent No.