- (1.) This appeal is directed against an order dated 6th May, 2011 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P. No. 65(W) of 2011 whereby the learned Single Judge declined to pass any interim order in the matter on the ground that as the respondent No. 3 had already been appointed by the respondents authorities in respect of the distributorship on January 6, 2011 the balance of convenience and/ or inconvenience was in favour of rejecting the prayer for interim order. The learned single Judge, however, directed that the appointment of the respondent No. 3 shall abide by the result of the case. The case of the appellant in short is that Indian Oil Corporation, Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited and Hindustan Petroleum Corporation had issued a notice for appointment of distributors at various locations including Digha (Urban/Rural). The writ petitioner/appellant had applied for that along with others which include the respondent No. 3 as well. She was awarded 89.5 per cent, and the respondent No. 3 was awarded 92.67 per cent. marks.
(2.) The appellant contends that from the relevant brochure it appears that the marks for infrastructure and facilities were fixed at 35, out of which 25 was for godown and 10 was for the showroom. According to the brochure the godown/land for construction of the godown would be suitable if it was located within 15 kilometres or within the area of operation of the advertised location. According to the appellant this necessarily means that the showroom was to be within Digha (Urban/ Rural) itself.
(3.) The contention of the appellant is that the showroom offered by the respondent No. 3 is at a place known as Thikra which is a few kilometres away from Digha (Urban/Rural). In support of her contention the appellant has relied on the information which have been obtained by her from different authorities on various dates which, according to the appellant, have not been controverted by the Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited, the respondent No. 1 herein as the appropriate authority involved in this case. The appellant further stressed on the inability of the respondent No. 3 to show that Thikra was within the Digha (Urban/Rural). According to the appellant if Thikra was outside Digha (Urban/Rural) area the respondent No. 3 stands disqualified as her plot of land was not within the stipulated area. The appellant submits that a godown might be within a radius of 15 kilometres from the trading area but the showroom must be within the trading area itself.;