Petitioner challenged refusal to allot Indian Oil petrol station dealership as she ranked second in merit panel. Single Judge dismissed writ petition holding that head office advice to cancel the panel due to Supreme Court directions precluded granting relief despite petitioner's eligibility.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
CAV ON : 24/09/2014
DATED : 21/01/2016
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.KARNAN
W.P.No.25376 of 2007
S.Chitra ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.Government of India, Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas, Shastri Bhavan, New Delhi - 110 001.
2.The Chairman, Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., Indian Oil Bhavan, G-9, All Yavar Jung Marg, Bandra (East), Mumbai - 400 061.
3.The Deputy General Manager (RS), Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., (Marketing Division), Indian Oil Bhavan, No.139, Nungambakkam High Road, Chennai - 600 034.
... Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate Writ, Order or direction, in the nature of a Writ, calling for the entire records in Letter No.TNS/R/RO
2
Dealership/Thammampatti, dated 24.04.2007 on the file of the 3rd respondent herein refusing to consider the claim of the petitioner for allotment of dealership for Petrol/Diesel Retail Outlet at Thammampatti, Salem District and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents herein to consider on merit the claim of the petitioner herein, ranked at S.No.2 in the panel prepared by the 'Dealer Selection Board' for allotment of Petrol/Diesel Retail Out let at Thammampatti in accordance with law without resorting to re-advertisement of the said location.
For Petitioner : Mr.V.R.Raja Sekaran
For Respondents : Mr.Abdul Saleem
M/s.Anand Abdul and Vinodh Association for R2 and R3 Mr.P.M.Dhamodharan SCGP for R1 (Additional Government Pleader)
O R D E R
The short facts of the case are as follows:-
The petitioner has submitted that she is a Post Graduate in M.Tech (Chemical Engineering) from I.I.T Madras. She served as Assistant Manager (Production) for a period of six years with HINDUSTAN PHOTO FILMS. She resigned her post in the year of 1992. She submits that on 27.12.1997, the 2nd respondent herein has invited application for awarding Petrol/Diesel
3
Retail outlet Dealership under open category in Thammampatti, Salem District. She has applied on 11.02.1998 and her application number is 800164. She was called for interview on 25.08.2000. She was one among the three candidates in the panel recommended by the "Dealer Selection Board" hereinafter referred to as 'Dealer Selection Board'. She was ranked at S.No.2 in the panel. The dealership was given to some other applicant who was ranked at S.No.1 in the panel on extraneous consideration. Hence, dealership was not allotted to her.
4
independent committee to determine the validity of the cancellation order dated 09.08.2002. In respect of other allotments, the Supreme Court was pleased to set aside the order of cancellation dated 09.08.2002. The Supreme Court was pleased to appoint a Committee comprising of Hon'ble Mr.Justice S.C.Agrawal and Hon'ble Mr.Justice P.K.Bahri to examine the 413 cases of tainted allotments and submit a report. Retail out let dealership for Thammampatti allotted to the candidate ranked at S.No.1 is one among the cases of tainted allotment referred to the committee. The petitioner has further submitted that as she was ranked at S.No.2 in the merit panel approved by the Dealer Selection Board for allotment of Retail out let dealership at Thammampatti, the Committee appointed by the Supreme Court issued a notice on 02.06.2003 giving her an opportunity to put forth relevant material/facts if any, so as to assist the committee to scrutinize the allotment made on extraneous considerations. After due enquiry, the Committee has held in its report that the allotment of Retail out let Dealership of IOC at Thammampatti is not made in consonance with guidelines and the same is vitiated. In the judgment reported in (2007) 2 SCC 536 (MUKUND SWARUP MISHRA Vs. UNION OF INDIA) Supreme Court was pleased to accept the report of the Committee and up hold the cancellation of allotment of retail out let dealership of IOC at Thammampatti.
5
6
candidates included in the merit panel and there is no other eligible candidate available for consideration. Even when the panel is cancelled for the above mentioned two reasons all the eligible candidates will be re-interviewed based on the records available. The re-advertisement of a location is resorted to only when all the three candidates in the merit panel are found not suitable based on established complaints made subsequent to the selection and no other eligible candidate is available for consideration.
7
she is constrained to approach this Court seeking direction to the respondents herein to consider her application (ranked as S.No.2 in the merit panel) for allotment of dealership.
8
order was challenged before different High Courts and the same were transferred to the Supreme Court. The Apex Court had held that 413 cases of tainted allotments are required to be scrutinized by an independent committee to determine the validity of the cancellation order, dated 09.08.2002, and set aside the order of cancellation in respect of other allotments. Consequently, the Apex Court had appointed a Committee consisting of two Honourable Judges of Supreme Court to examine the tainted allotments. The candidate, who was ranked at S.No.1, is one among them and as such he is not eligible. The Committee, appointed by the Apex Court, had issued a notice, on 02.06.2003, giving an opportunity to the petitioner to putforth relevant materials and facts, if any, so as to assist the Committee to scrutinize the allotment made on extraneous considerations. After a comprehensive enquiry, the Committee had held that the allotment of petrol / diesel retail outlet dealership of Indian Oil Corporation at Thammampatti is not made in consonance with guidelines. Subsequently, the petitioner made a representation to the third respondent to allot dealership in her favour, since the candidate ranked at S.No.1 was found not eligible as per the report of the Scrutiny Committee. Hence, the learned counsel has prayed to quash the impugned order passed by the third respondent.
9
9.The learned counsel appearing for the first respondent has submitted that the petitioner is ranked at S.No.2. The respondents have been advised by their head office that the panel for the location would be cancelled. Therefore, the candidates, who are in three numbers, as per the panel cannot be considered. Hence, the learned counsel has prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.
10
secured 89 marks and therefore, dealership has not been allotted in her favour. For all these reasons, the learned counsel has prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.
21/01/2016
Index : Yes/No. Internet : Yes/No. ub / krk
11
To:
12
C.S.KARNAN, J. ub / krk
W.P.No.25376 of 2007
21/01/2016
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should direct allotment of petrol/diesel retail outlet dealership to a petitioner ranked second in the merit panel when the panel was declared cancelled by the head office follo
Whether the Head Office advice declaring the panel cancelled deprives the petitioner of jurisdiction to obtain the dealership when a merit panel existed.
Whether the petitioner's complaint regarding extraneous considerations in the selection of the first-ranked candidate warrants quashing the cancellation of the entire panel.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Mukund Swarup Mishra v. Union of IndiaRelied on¶29
(2007) 2 SCC 536 (MUKUND SWARUP MISHRA Vs. UNION OF INDIA) · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
S. Chitra
Government of India, Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas
The Chairman, Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.
The Deputy General Manager (RS), Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.
C.S. Karnan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
