Mr. Mir Dara Sheko, J. - (1.) The matter appeared in the list for hearing as specially fixed matter where Mr. Saha Roy prayed for extension of interim order, but due to opposition of learned counsel for respondent no.9 the writ petition is taken up for hearing. Heard Mr. Saha Roy being assisted by Mr. Mitra, Mr. Bhattacharya and Mr. Das, learned advocates for the writ petitioner. Heard also Mr. Bhattacharya, learned senior advocate being assisted by Mr. Chattopadhyay, Mr. Chatterjee, Mr. Maji, Mr. Saha and Mr. Ganguly, representing the respondent no.9 and also Mr. Shukla being assisted by Mr. Pandey and Ms. Sinha, learned advocates for BPCL. The case is now taken up for delivery of judgment.
(2.) In the tune of the text of the writ petition Mr. Saha Roy ventilated the grievance that pursuant to the advertisement for appointment for LPG distributor as was published in daily newspaper Ananda Bazar Patrika on September 9, 2012 in different locations, including Jamalpur, the writ petitioner like the respondent no.9 had submitted application for Jamalpur location. Since as a matter of policy both the writ petitioner and the respondent no.9 were found eligible by the Oil Corporation having tie between them, there was a draw of lottery (shortly to be called on as draw on lot) held on May 11, 2013 upon due information to and in presence of both of them. The respondent no.9 became eligible of said draw on lot and the Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited (BPCL) accordingly proceeded with the respondent no.9 for completion with the rest formalities. Inviting attention to clause 7, sub-clauses (vi) and (vii) of the Brochure (of 2011) Mr. Saha Roy submits that since as per advertisement the last date of submission of application was October 12, 2012 and till that date the respondent no.9 had no document in possession of ownership for the purpose construction of godown for storage of LPG cylinders and since by virtue of the lease deed dated October 12, 2012 the writ petitioner had shown the leasehold property in his possession which was in fact barga land, and thereby, suppressing the material facts rather giving false information the respondent no.9 mislead the BPCL authority in issuing letter of intent on February 24, 2014. Further submits that in turn the authority by exceeding the terms and conditions of the brochure favoured the respondent no.9 allowing him to provide alternative land beyond the stipulated date, which, according to Mr. Saha Roy, would not be permissible. Further submits that ultimately the respondent no.9 submitted a lease deed dated March 20, 2017 showing another land in his possession and the Oil Corporation authority accepted such deed showing undue favour. Mr. Saha Roy with reference to clauses (vi) and (vii) of the brochure tried to impress that the condition of offering the land for construction of godown and showroom was that it would have to be submitted "as on the date of the application" and not even on the last date of submission of application as per advertisement and far to speak of on any later date. He also invited attention to the Annexure P7 to the writ petition submitting that in the similarly situated case the BPCL authority taking note of failure of any alternative land for proposed LPG distributorship on Satgachia location, district Burdwan before the given date, the lease deed having been placed after date of submission of application it was not considered by the authority. So question is raised as to how discrimination is made in favouring the respondent no. 9 in allowing him to submit document of lease deed long after the cut off date. Submits that the writ petitioner though had all the eligibility criteria in getting the letter of intent but she having been denied by the authority even in collecting necessary documents despite applying under the Right to Information Act, 2005, the writ petition has been filed with the prayer so that the letter of intent issued in favour of the respondent no.9 by the BPCL authority may be rescinded or cancelled and/or withdrawn and the same may be issued in favour of the petitioner pursuant to the vacancy declared by the said advertisement dated September 9, 2012 (supra) and for other reliefs as prayed for in the writ petition relying on the following cases:- i) Bishnu Biswas and Ors. v. Union of India, (2014) 3 WBLR (SC) 455 ; ii) P. Mahendran and Ors. v. State of Karnataka, AIR l990 S.C. 405 .
(3.) Mr. Bhattacharyya at the very outset, per contra, challenged the locus standi of the writ petitioner in filing the writ petition questioning the letter of intent issued by BPCL in favour of respondent no.9. Submits that the allegation of suppression of facts or providing any false information has no basis, so the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. Mr. Bhattacharya apprises the court that the question of field verification comes in after sorting out and the draw on lot, and not before that, and while the writ petitioner was at par only till before the stage of 'draw on lot' right of the writ petitioner was sealed, rather was lost when on the basis of draw on lot the respondent no.9 succeeded. Therefore, there being no nepotism or favouritism as alleged and the writ petitioner being an unsuccessful candidate cannot challenge the successful candidate in whose favour the authority after being satisfied exercised their discretion in issuing the letter of intent.;