- (1.) THE petitioner, in petition under Articles 14, 226 and 227 of the constitution of India, challenges the allotment of a petrol pump/retail outlet by respondent no. 1 in favour of respondent No. 3 at Borim, ponda.
(2.) BRIEFLY stated, respondent No. 1 ('company' for short) published an advertisement on or about 27-3-1993, seeking applications from eligible persons for being appointed as a dealer as per eligibility criteria prescribed therein. Although the petitioner claims to have land in Village Shiroda, the petitioner did not respond to the said advertisement. Respondent No. 3 did respond and so did many others.
(3.) SUBSEQUENTLY, the Oil Selection board which, we are told, was presided over by a retired High Court Judge at the relevant time, shortlisted respondent No. 3 and 2005 (1) ALL MR - Feb. respondent No. 3 was issued with a letter of intent dated 7-1-1994. As per the said letter of intent, respondent No. 3 was required to arrange for a suitable plot of 50 x 50 metres at Shiroda on Ponda - Sanvordem road within a period of four months and was also required to comply with other conditions. Respondent No. 3 went on representing to the Company that he was unable to find a suitable plot within Shiroda village, as per the said advertisement and finally submitted a letter from the grampanchayat of Shiroda, dated 5-7-1994 certitying that a plot was not available for the purpose of setting up a petrol pump/retail outlet at Shiroda. Respondent No. 3 also represented that a plot was available at a nearby location at borim. This proposal of respondent No. 3 was subsequently put up before a committee consisting of the representatives of the industry which, at its meeting, held on 21-3-1996 was pleased to approve the site at Borim and, subsequently, at the new site at Borim, the said petrol pump/retail outlet came to be commissioned on 31-3-1996. Prior to that, at the instance of respondent No. 3, the Additional district Magistrate, Panaji by a Public Notice in Official Gazette dated 7-3-1996 and 'gomantak Times' and 'sunaprant' dailies, dated 1-3-1996 sought objections from the interested persons against the setting up of the said petrol pump at Borim. None objected. 4. The said allotment of the petrol pump in favour of respondent No. 3 by the company is sought to be assailed by the petitioner as being arbitrary, as not complying with the very guidelines issued by the Company for allotment and/or location of the petrol pump/retail outlets. A copy of the said guidelines known as "volume/distance norms FOR SETTING UP RETAIL outlets" have been produced. The relevant guideline reads as follows : "c. Locations which meet V/d norms and where there is no response to advertisement/ no eligible candidate/suitable land not being available. Dealership must be advertised at least twice. One advertisement released should be under the revised guidelines. NOTE : All 'substitute' locations in lieu of 'dropped' locations, must be in the same s. O. C. /class of market in the same State is permissible after Industry Members' concurrence at SLC level that no location meeting V/d norms is available in the same class of market as that of the "dropped" location. All 'substitute' locations must be concurred at SLC level by all Industry Members for inclusion in a Market Plan/supplementary. Advertisements for 'substitute' locations can be released only after these are included in a subsequent Marketing Plan/ supplementary. ";