M.M.KUMAR,J - (1.) THIS petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution prays for declaring Shri Suresh Kumar-respondent No. 3 as ineligible for consideration for grant of LPG distributorship at Elenabad, reserved for members of the Scheduled Castes. It has further been prayed that after declaring Shri Suresh Kumar-respondent No. 3 as ineligible, consequential direction be issued to the Department of Petroleum and Natural Gas and the Hindustan Petroleum Corporation, respondent Nos. 1 and 2, to award LPG distributorship at Elenabad, in favour of the petitioner as the petitioner claims to be at Sr. No. 2 in order of merit after Shri Suresh Kumar-respondent No. 3. The petitioner further prayed that decision of respondent No. 2 to re- advertise LPG distributorship at Elenabad upon nullification of the selection process in respect of Shri Suresh Kumar-respondent No. 3 be set aside.
(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that on 26.12.1997, respondent No. 2 advertised the LPG distributorship at Elenabad under the reserved category meant for Scheduled Castes. On account of inadequate response, the advertisement was once again repeated on 23.8.2000. The petitioner accordingly applied on 19.12.2000. On the basis of higher marks awarded by the Dealers Selection Board, Shri Suresh Kumar-respondent No. 3 was allotted the LPG distributorship as a Schedule Caste candidate on 27.3.2002, whereas the petitioner was placed at Sr. No. 2. There were heavy reports in the newspapers alleging widespread irregularity, arbitrariness and favouritism in the matter of allotment of LPG distributorship throughout India. Respondent No. 1 took a decision to cancel all allotments, which included allotment made to Shri Suresh Kumar-respondent No. 3. The matter was raised before Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Onkar Lal Bajaj v. Union of India, (2003)2 SCC 673, wherein the validity of the order passed by respondent No. 1 on 9.8.2002, whereby all allotments made in respect of retail outlets, LPG distributorships and SKO-LDO dealerships on the recommendation of the Dealers Selection Board were cancelled. Hon'ble the Supreme Court after detailed discussion issued following directions :- "57. In view of the aforesaid : I. We appoint a committee comprising Mr Justice S.C. Agrawal, a retired Judge of this court and Mr Justice P.K. Bahri, a retired Judge of the Delhi High Court, to examine the aforesaid 413 cases. We request the Committee to submit the report to this court within a period of three months. II. The Committee would devise its own procedure for undertaking the examination of these cases. If considered necessary, the Committee may appoint any person to assist it. III. We direct the ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas, Government of India and the four oil companies to render full, complete and meaningful assistance and cooperation to the Committee. The relevant records are directed to be produced before the Committee within five days. IV. We direct the Ministry to appoint a nodal officer not below the rank of a Joint Secretary for effective working of the Committee. V. The Central Government, State Government/Union Territories and all others are directed to render such assistance to the Committee as may be directed by it. VI. The oil companies are directed to provide as per the Committee's directions, the requisite infrastructure, staff, transport and make necessary arrangements, whenever so directed, for travel, stay, payments and other facilities etc. VII. In respect of any case if the Committee, on preliminary examination of the facts and records, forms an opinion that the allotment was made on merits and not as a result of political connections or patronage or other extraneous considerations, it would be open to the Committee not to proceed with the probe in detail." The Committee of two Hon'ble Judges constituted by Hon'ble the Supreme Court issued notice to the petitioner calling upon him to submit his affidavit as he was placed at Sr. No. 2 in order of merit by the Dealers Selection Board. Accordingly, he filed affidavit and documents in support of his claim that Shri Suresh Kumar-respondent No. 3 did not belong to Schedule Caste category and was, thus, ineligible. He also alleged that the allotment in favour of Shri Suresh Kumar-respondent No. 3 was even otherwise vitiated due to favouritism. The Committee in respect of Shri Suresh Kumar respondent No. 3 has held that the Chairman and Members had awarded higher marks to him then other two applicants i.e. the petitioner and one Shri Vishal, on merits. It has concluded that keeping into consideration the experience of the petitioner, the difference of 23 marks between the marks awarded to Shri Suresh Kumar-respondent No. 3 and the petitioner did not appear to be justified. In paras 34 and 35 of the report, the Committee has concluded as under :- "34. The Chairman and other two members have awarded higher number of marks to the allottee than the other two applicants on the merit panel but there is a difference of 9 marks between the marks awarded by the Chairman to the allottee and the applicant at No. 2 and 10 marks difference between the marks awarded by the Chairman to the allottee and the applicant at No. 3. The difference between the marks by the other two members to the three applicants is only marginal. The difference of 11 marks between the marks awarded by the Chairman and other members to the allottee and the applicant at No. 2 does not appear to be justified. 35. Keeping in view the objective factors mentioned by all the three applicants in their applications and the documents filed alongwith the applications, it has been found that the award of higher number of marks by the Chairman to the allottee as compared to other two applicants on the merit panel was not justified and has to be regarded as arbitrary. The higher number of marks awarded to the allottee exceed the margin of difference between the marks awarded to the allottee and the applicant No. 2."
(3.) IT is appropriate to mention that the question with regard to the caste of Shri Suresh Kumar-respondent No. 3 was also raised before the Committee. However, the Committee did not prefer to express any opinion on the aforementioned disputed question. In para 24, the Committee had dealt with the issue by concluding as under :- "24. In view of the claim made by the allottee that he is "Dhanak" by caste and the assertion by applicant at No. 2 that the allottee is "Dhanaka" by caste and documents that have been submitted by both of them, it can be said that there is a serious controversy on the question as to whether the allottee belongs to a Scheduled Caste and was eligible for consideration for the location reserved for 'SC' category. The matter requires detailed examination on the basis of evidence. The Committee has, therefore, refrained from expressing any view on this disputed question." ;