- (1.) AFTER having heard the learned senior counsel for the petitioner and having perused the material placed on record, this Court is not persuaded to entertain the matter in the writ jurisdiction.
(2.) THE relevant background aspects are that the respondent Indian Oil Corporation Limited ('IOCL') issued an advertisement dated 18.02.2004 for grant of dealership for various retail outlets including the one in question, i.e., at Bhagat Ki Kothi, Jodhpur, which was reserved for the candidates belonging to physically handicapped category. The petitioner also applied for the same alongwith the other candidates. After the process of selection, one Shri Raj Kumar Arora was placed in the select list at serial number 1 whereas the petitioner was placed at serial number 2. Consequently, the said Shri Arora was issued the letter of intent. The case of the petitioner is that he made a probe into the matter and came to know that the said allottee had furnished false and incorrect informations and concealed the relevant information wherefore his selection was vitiated; and, accordingly, he made a complaint on 17.12.2004. Further, it is the case of the petitioner that on the complaint made by him, an inquiry was conducted by the officers of the respondent IOCL and the complaint was found correct and, therefore, a show cause notice was issued to the said selected candidate whereagainst he filed a writ petition in which, certain orders were passed. The petitioner submits that he was unaware of all the proceedings and in order to know the fate of his complaint, he got served a notice dated 25.02.2006 (Annex.2); and in response thereof, the respondents stated in the communication dated 16.03.2006 (Annexure-3) as under: - "In reference to above cited subject, we recevied a notice dated 25.02.2006 which was sent by Shri Pradeep Choudhary, Advocate, Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur on your behalf. It is informed to you that on your complaint, corporation held enquiry against Shri Raj Kumar Arora, who was selected for allotment of retail outlet at Bhagat Ki Kothi, Jodhpur. After inquiry, a show cause notice as to why letter of intend and letter of appointment issued him may not be withdrawn issued to him and asked reply to said show cause notice issued to Shri Raj Kumar Arora. Against said letter, Shri Raj Kumar Arora filed a writ petition before the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court at Jodhpur. In this writ petition, Hon'ble High Court passed order and directed to not to take any action in this respect. Thus, till the disposal of the said writ petition, no action can be taken in this respect. As soon as writ decided, parawise reply on your notice will be dispatched to you. So please noted. Thanking you." It is further submitted that when the petitioner came to Jodhpur in the month of April 2012, he came to know about the said Shri Arora having tendered resignation from the dealership of the outlet in question. With reference to this fact, the petitioner got served a notice demanding justice dated 20.04.2012 (Annex.5) through his lawyer; and it was submitted that in the facts and circumstances, his case has ripened for consideration and since he had already been selected by the Selection Board and placed at serial number 2, he be issued the letter of intent and letter for appointment for the dealership in question. The petitioner has also placed on record the letter dated 30.04.2012 as Annexure-6, said to have been issued by the Senior Divisional Retail Sales Manager, IOCL, Marketing Division, Jodhpur Divisional Office, Jodhpur terminating the dealership of said Shri Arora pursuant to the resignation dated 01.02.2012. The petitioner has further placed on record as Annexure-7 the application made by him on 17.05.2012 seeking issuance of letter of intent to himself. With reference to the above facts and circumstances, the petitioner has sought the relief in this writ petition that the respondents may be directed to immediately issue the letter of intent and letter of appointment in his favour for the outlet in question for which he was selected and placed at serial number 2 in the select list. A declaration has also been sought that the petitioner being at serial number 2 in the select list, is entitled to get the allotment of the said outlet when the person selected at serial number 1 has already resigned. In the alternative, it is prayed that until the decision on the request as made by the petitioner under the notice (Annex.5) and the application made thereafter (Annex.7), the respondents may be restrained from issuing the letter of intent and/or from allotting the aforesaid outlet to any other person. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has strenuously argued that the selection of the said Shri Arora had been fundamentally illegal as had been the complaint made by the petitioner; and the position was clear to the respondent IOCL who did issue a notice to the said allottee for cancellation. It is submitted that the allottee, faced with the situation that his allotment was liable to be cancelled for submission of false information, chose to tender resignation. The contention urged is that the dealership granted to the said allottee having already been terminated, the petitioner, standing at serial number 2 in the select list, is entitled to be issued the letter of intent and letter of appointment. It is also suggested during the course of submissions that in fact, the respondent IOCL was aware of the position that upon cancellation of the dealership previously granted, the petitioner was to be given the letter of appointment and in that regard, the contents of the communication dated 16.03.2006 (Annex.3) have been referred (as reproduced hereinabove).
(3.) AFTER having given a thoughtful consideration to the entire matter, this Court is clearly of the view that the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner fall short of making out a case for issuance of mandamus as prayed. It does appear from the submissions made that the petitioner was placed at serial number 2 in the selection in question; and that the dealership was allotted to the person who was placed at serial number 1; and further that the petitioner made a complaint against the selection of the said person at serial number 1 who, ultimately, resigned. However, it cannot be assumed on the basis of these facts that the petitioner has ipso facto acquired the right to be issued the letter of intent and letter of appointment. As to how the particular outlet is to be manned and managed is ultimately for the respondent- authorities to consider. Moreover, it appears that the agreement with the person above referred has been terminated only on 30.04.2012. It has not been shown if the respondents have, thereafter, straightway allotted the dealership in question to anyone else. It appears that earlier, a show cause notice was sent on behalf of the petitioner by his lawyer on 24.04.2012 upon submission of resignation by the allottee; and, after termination of the dealership, the petitioner made a request for allotment on 17.05.2012. It is not brought on record as to what proceedings have been adopted by the respondents thereafter. In any case, as observed hereinbefore, ultimately how a particular outlet is to be managed, is the matter to be considered by the IOC; and the petitioner, only for having stood in the select list at serial number 2 or for having made the complaint against the person at serial number 1, is not having a vested right to be issued the letter of intent or appointment. ;