SATYENDRANATH MONDAL Vs. HINDUSTHAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant Appeal, along with three other Appeals, being F.M.A.T. Nos. 2824, 2879 and 2481 of 1992, are all directed against the judgment and order dated 10.8.92 passed by Susama Chatterji, J. CO. Nos. 6113 (W) and 7023 (W) of 1988.

(2.) The writ petitioners, Kutubuddin Goldar and Satyendra Nath Mondal, in the aforesaid two writ petitions, had challenged the issuance of the letter of intent dated 19.4.88 by the Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. (hereinafter shortend into Corporation) in favour of the respondent No. 5, Radhakrishna Roy, offering him the Retail Outlet Dealership at Malancha, District 24-Pargams, in terms thereof.

(3.) The aforesaid Corporation had published an advertisement in the Bengali Daily Newspaper Ananda Bazar Patrika on 20-12-85 inviting applications from unemployed Graduates for appointment of a Dealer for Retail Outlet of their product in the area Malancha, District 24-Parganas (North), in terms thereof specifying the eligibility criteria for award of Dealership thereunder. The aforesaid two writ petitioners, the Respondent No. 5, Radhakrishna Roy (hereinafter referred to as Radhakrishna) and others had submitted applications to the Corporation therefore. The Respondent No. 4, the Oil Selection Board (East) (hereinafter shortened into Board) was entrusted to select candidate for the purpose of appointment therefore. As it appears from the affidavit-in-Opposition affirmed by Sri Arunavo Roy Mahasay on behalf of the aforesaid Board on 8.2.89, the Board had interviewed 19 (nineteen) candidates in all, including the two writ petitioners and Radhakrishna on 9.12.87. In the said interview, the highest mark was obtained by the Respondent No. 5, Radhakrishna and the second highest mark was obtained by the writ petitioner, Satyendra Nath Mondal (hereinafter referred to as Satyendra), who were empanelled by it (Board) as eligible candidates for the purpose of carrying out field investigation. In terms of the selection so made by Board a letter of intent was issued by the Corporation in favour of the said Radhakrishna by letter dated 19.4.88 intending to offer him the Retail Outlet Dealership at Malancha, District 24-Parganas, in terms thereof on the conditions specified therein. The grievance of both the writ petitioners (in the aforesaid two writ petitions) is that the appointment so made in favour of Radhakrishna had not been made properly, and they had accordingly prayed for consideration of their respective candidates. The learned Trial Judge upon consideration of the materials on record had clearly held that the said Radhakrishna had deliberately suppressed material facts in his relevant application, as a result of which his selection by the Board could not be sustained. The learned Trial Judge bad, accordingly, quashed the selection of Radhakrishna and had directed the Board to consider afresh the candidature of all the intending parties, including the writ petitioners in both the writ petitions, and others who had participated in accordance with law within a period of three months from the date of communication of the order in terms thereof for tire reasons recorded at length.