- (1.) The petitioner is seeking a writ in the nature of certiorari for setting aside the order dated 20.02.2013 (Anexure P-8), vide which the retail outlet dealership, awarded to the petitioner, has been cancelled. Vide advertisement dated 18.09.2011 (Annexure P-1), respondent-corporation invited applications for allotment of retail outlet dealerships. Twenty applications were invited under the open category. As per brochure dated 02.09.2011 (Annexure P-2), the petitioner was found eligible. On 17.04.2012, the result for allotment of retail outlet dealership was declared and the petitioner was found to be at serial No.1 with 61.83 marks (Annexure P-6). Thereafter, on a complaint made by a candidate at serial No.3 in the merit list, re-evaluation was conducted and the petitioner was given 0.16 marks under the heading fixed and moveable assets. In this manner, her merit came down from 61.83 to 57.99. Copy of re-evaluated marks sheet has been annexed as Annexure P-7. On the basis of the same, she was informed vide order dated 20.02.2013 (Annexure P-8) that her merit has been revised. This order is under challenge in this petition. Mr. Kanwaljit Singh, learned Senior Advocate, has referred to the brochure (Annexure P-2) to contend that as per para 18 of the same, a complaint against the dealership selection can be made within 30 days from the date of declaration of the result and thereafter, if a decision is taken to investigate the complaint, it will be done by a senior official of the Oil Company and a speaking order will be passed after giving due opportunity to the complainant etc. Copy of the speaking order will be given to all concerned. Thereafter, decision on the complaint will be taken. He has further argued that in the cases of involving error in evaluation process on interview based parameters, re-interview of all the candidates will be conducted. As per brochure (Annexure P-2), giving a show cause notice to the petitioner was mandatory, which has not been done in this case. He has referred to the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Sewa Ram Vs. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. & others, 2008 2 RCR(Civ) 317, to contend that when an allotment is cancelled by the Oil Corporation in an illegal and arbitrary manner, the Court will not hesitate to quash the allotment made to another candidate, even if he has made substantial investment in installing the LPG distributorship. He has further made reference to the judgments delivered in Mustaque Ahmad Vs. Union of India and others, 1995 AIR(Pat) 136 and Krishna Reddy Vs. Joint Collector, Chittoor and others, 1994 CrLJ 1091.
(2.) Finally, he has argued that as per the language of Clause 18 of the brochure (Annexure P-2), on a complaint made against the declaration of the result, the Indian Oil Corporation is competent to conduct an investigation. The investigation has to be carried out in a manner to ascertain the facts and circumstances of the case by collecting evidence.
(3.) On the other hand, learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the respondent-corporation, has justified the decision taken by the respondent-corporation in re-evaluating the marks given to the petitioner. He has referred to regulation 18 of the brochure (Annexure P-2) and has argued that where in the case of selection process, it is found that the same is not in accordance with the laid down guidelines, the reevaluation based on the documents available on record, will be carried out and after re-evaluation, the revised list shall be displayed on the notice board/IOC website and separate communications will be sent to all the candidates. On a complaint received from respondent No.3, the application form of the petitioner was again perused. In the application form, the petitioner had annexed the RCs of four vehicles i.e. three TATA 1613 vehicles and one Maruti Gypsy. However, TATA 1613 vehicles had been subject to hire purchase agreement with M/s IndusInd Bank Ltd. and were subject to hypothecation. The evaluation committee while evaluating the petitioner under the parameter "Fixed & Movable Assets", should have considered the value of Rs.4 lakhs with regard to the Maruti Gypsy. The working capital advertised for the location in question was in the advertisement dated 18.09.2011 was Rs.25 lakhs. Accordingly, the petitioner was entitled to only 0.16 marks instead of 4 marks. Thus, as per Clause 18 (B) (ii) (a) of the brochure, re-evaluation was based on the documents available on the record. The final mark sheet was prepared for the subject RO location and the letters were sent to all the applicants, who had appeared in the merit panel along with the revised mark sheets. The final result was declared as under:- JUDGEMENT_641_LAWS(P&H)9_2014_1.html ;