SHAGUN SETHI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BOTH these Writ Petitions involve a common question of law though slightly different facts and are being taken up together for disposal.

(2.) THE petitioner Shagun Sethi, in Writ Petition No.249 of 2002, has challenged the selection of respondent No.5 who has been selected for grant of a retail outlet by respondent No.4 Indian Oil Corporation to be set up at Nagrota Bagwan. According to the petitioner, she was qualified to be considered for the selection and ultimate award of the retail outlet, however, she was surprised to learn that respondent No.5 had been selected and recommended. The petitioner has alleged malafide in selection of respondent as aforesaid and submitted that the selection procedure was not fair. A number of allegations have been made by the petitioner, which of course have been denied by the respondents. When the Writ Petition was taken up for hearing, the records of the Selection Committee were summoned by this Court in order to prima facie ascertain as to whether the selection procedure was fair or not.

(3.) INTERESTINGLY , respondent No.4, Indian Oil Corporation, in reply to these allegations has adopted a vague stand by submitting that the eligibility of candidates is determined on the basis of the Policy Guidelines and the information placed before them. Respondent No.5 has, of-course, denied these allegations and has also submitted that the petition is not maintainable because the mother of the petitioner is already having a retail outlet in the name and style of M/s.Dhauladhar Service Station, Birta, District Kangra, since the year 1981. So far as the other allegations in para-8 of the writ petition are concerned, a vague denial has been made by this respondent.