TEJ PRATAP SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been preferred by the sole petitioner for issuance of an appropriate writ or order or direction to respondent nos. 3, 4 and 9 (hereinafter compendiously referred to as the Corporation), to appoint the petitioner as a dealer of LPG for Indane, and for further direction to the respondent Corporation to do field inspection of all the three candidates who were short-listed by the Dealers' Selection Board after setting aside the allotment made in favour of respondent no. 10. The Corporation issued an advertisement which had appeared in the local dailies on 7.6.98, inter alia, for selection and appointment of LPG distributor for Indane at village Makhdumpur, district Jehanabad, in the State of Bihar. We need not recapitulate the important factors stated in the advertisement because the same are undisputed and no argument was advanced on that. A copy of the advertisement is marked Annexure B to the counter affidavit of the Corporation. After the said advertisement (Annexure B) had seen the light of the day, the respondent Corporation had made certain insertions in their Manual for selection of dealers/distributors, effective from 14.10.98. In so far as the same is relevant in the present context, it provided for verification of the bio-data of the person figuring at sl. no. 1 of the select list, and is known as field investigation. A copy of the insertion is marked Annexure A to the respondent Corporation. It appears that 23 persons or may be more, submitted their applications to the respondent Corporation in response to the advertisement. Surely 23 persons were interviewed by the Oil Selection Board and a select list of three persons was prepared wherein respondent no. 10 figured at serial no. 10. After the field inspection of respondent no. 10 alone, he has been finally selected for appointment as LPG distributor of Indane at village Makdumpur, District Jehanabad. The petitioner also figured therein apart from one more person. The last person in the select list is satisfied with the result and has chosen not to contest it at any stage.

(2.) While assailing the validity of the entire selection process, Mr. Bhupendra Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the respondent Corporation has exercised its discretion in favour of respondent no. 10 improperly. He admits that the petitioner as well as all respondents are equal in so far the qualifications as stipulated in the advertisement are concerned, but, in his submission, he is superior to respondent no. 10 on account of various other non-advertisement factors. He was appointed by the State Government for public distribution of grains in a certain area in Bihar which he operated from 1966 to 1983, vide Annexure 1. He owns a house which shall be utilised for purposes of the dealership office opposite to the police station at Makhdumpur which shall go a long way in ensuring the safety and security of the business in question. He next submitted that he is the owner of 10 acres of land situate on Patna-Gaya Road which is outside village Makhdumpur, is fairly close to the railway station, and can be used for godown purposes. He also submitted that he is a solvent person and had produced before the Oil Selection Board Vikash Patra of the face value of Rs. 4.35 lacs, which can be utilised for running the business in question successfully, vide Annexure 2.

(3.) Mr. Kalidas Chatterjee, Advocate, appearing for the Corporation, has submitted in opposition that once it is found that tenders equally satisfy all the conditions mentioned in the advertisement, then all further claims or qualifications of the disgruntled candidate become wholly irrelevant. In his submission, the aforesaid four aspects raised by the petitioner allegedly making him a superior candidate in relation to respondent no. 10 are wholly irrelevant considerations. He further submits that admittedly both the petitioner and respondent no. 10 are equally qualified for consideration. He relies on a Division Bench judgments of this Court reported in Maheshwar Prasad Singh Vs. The Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. and Others, AIR 1996 Patna 82 : (1995) 2 PLJR 115 as also of the Calcutta High Court reported in Chinmoy Sarkar and etc. Vs. Md. Shaniat Hossain and etc., AIR 1990 Cal 412 : 94 CWN 425 : (1994) 1 ILR (Cal) 82 Mr. Chatterjee next submitted that the provisions made for field inspection retrospectively does not impinge on its legality of validity because the same is a procedural matte, does not affect the substantive rights, and is only meant to doubly verify the facts claimed by the person who figures at sl. no. 1. He further submits that in case the facts regarding the claims of the first candidate are found to be untrue, or declines to accept the offer, then Clause (f) of Annexure A provides for field verification of the candidate at sl. no. 2. He next submitted that there is no question of discretion in such a verification, because the same is ministerial act and will not have any bearing on the exercise of discretion that has already been taken by the Selection Board.