JAWAHAR LAL GUPTA, J. - (1.) IS the action of the respondent-Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited in allotting a Gas Agency to respondent No. 4 illegal and thus liable to be set aside ? This is the short question that arises in this petition. A few facts as relevant for the decision of this case may be briefly noticed.
(2.) ON November 19, 1993, the Corporation invited applications for appointment of a distributor for 'Bharat Gas' from amongst the candidates belonging to Scheduled Castes. Various conditions of eligibility were laid down. One of the these related to residence. It was inter-alia provided that the applicant should be a resident of "any one of Rohtak/Jind/Hisar/Sonipat/Panipat/Bhiwani/Rewari and Gurgaon Districts in the State for a period not less than 5 years immediately preceding the date of application". The petitioner alleges that respondent No. 4 was in fact residing in village Garah, District Jalandhar in the State of Punjab. He was, thus, not eligible to be considered for appointment as a distributor. The petitioner further alleges that the candidates were interviewed by the Selection Board. He was placed at No. 2. Despite that, the distributorship had been given to respondent No. 4. The petitioner made a complaint. When nothing was done, he has approached this Court though the present writ petition. He prays that the allotment made to respondent No. 4 be quashed and a writ of Mandamus be issued directing the Corporation to make the allotment in his favour. The respondents contest the petitioner's claim. In the reply filed on behalf of the respondent Corporation, it has been inter-alia averred that the applications were scrutinised. Thereafter, these were placed before the Dealers Selection Board. The candidates were interviewed. Respondent No. 4 was selected and placed at No. 1. The petitioner's complaint that respondent No. 4 was not a resident of village Balsamand in District Hisar was inquired into. The Domicile Certificate dated November 18, 1993 issued in favour of the 4th respondent was confirmed vide Note dated February 24, 1998 by the City Magistrate. Even the voters list was checked. The 4th respondent is recorded as a voter in village Balsamand District Hisar. Copies of these documents have been produced on record as Annexures R1/2 to R1/4. A letter of Intent had been issued to the 4th respondent on June 19, 1995. Rest of the averments have been controverted. Thus, it has been prayed that the writ petition be dismissed with costs.
(3.) A separate reply has been filed by respondent No. 4. It has been averred that the petitioner's claim that he was at No. 2 in the merit list is totally false. In fact, he had not been found suitable and was not included in the list prepared by the Selection Board. It has been further averred that the petitioner has filed this petition "just to take unlawful advantage...". He had used a similar technique to become a partner in case of another person to whom an agency had been allotted. With regard to residence, it has been stated that the respondent's parents were residing in District Jalandhar. On being mis-guided by somebody, he had on an earlier occasion submitted an application for allotment of a Kerosene Depot in which he had disclosed his address of District Jalandhar. However, the residence certificate etc. as required were not filed. The application was left incomplete. Resultantly, he had not competed for selection for allotment of the Kerosene Depot. Otherwise, he has been a resident of Balsamad District Hisar since 1986. His name is entered in the voters' list of the village at Sr. No. 613, Block No. 5. Still further, it has been pointed out that the Vigilance Bureau of the State Government had conducted an enquiry through the Superintendent of Police, Hisar. The extract of the enquiry report has been reproduced in reply to para 6 of the writ petition. It was found that "in the year 1986 Yugal Kishore (respondent No. 4) started working with Ravi Ratan son of Dev Raj at Haryana Filling Station Bal Sumand ...... In return of his employment he was given bread, cloth and residential accommodation. His parents or brothers do not own any land worth cultivation in Amritsar or any where else." Various other allegations have also been controverted. The respondent prays that the writ petition be dismissed.;