Dinesh Maheshwari, J. - (1.) THESE five intra -court appeals, arising out of the common order dated 27.09.2011, as passed by the learned Single Judge of this court in three writ petitions involving common and inter -related issues, have been considered together; and are taken up for disposal by this common judgment. The multifaceted controversy in these appeals has its genesis in the competing claims of the petitioners of each of the three writ petitions (CWP Nos. 8210/2010, 12640/2010 & 12961/2010), for allotment of a retail outlet of Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. ('HPCL') at Udaipurwati, Distt. Jhunjhunu; and has its roots in the order passed by the concerned Oil Company HPCL, purportedly in compliance of the orders passed by the Court in this litigation at different stages and allegedly after investigation on the complaints/representations made by or against the concerned candidates.
(2.) THE relevant background aspects leading to these appeals could be noticed in the following: The concerned Oil Company, HPCL issued an advertisement dated 13.07.2009 inviting applications for appointment of dealers on their Retail Outlets at various places. As per the advertisement, the last date for receipt of the applications was 13.08.2009. The petitioners of the three writ petitions namely, Shri Vijendra Singh (CWP No. 8210/2010), Shri Amit Kumar Sharma (CWP No. 12640/2010) and Shri Ishwar Dutt Chaturvedi with Shri Ghanshyam Singh Shekhawat (CWP No. 12961/2010) offered their candidature by filing the applications before the last date for the outlet in question at Village Udaipurwati, District Jhunjhunu, which was available for allotment in open category; and appeared before the Interview Board on 04.03.2010. The Interview Board declared the result on 04.03.2010 itself and issued a provisional statement of marks wherein, the above -referred writ -petitioners were placed at serial numbers 5, 1 and 2 respectively. Dissatisfied with the result so declared, the said S/Shri Ishwar Dutt Chaturvedi and Ghanshyam Singh Shekhawat, who were placed at serial number 2 in the merit, preferred a writ petition (CWP No. 4875/2010) in this Court, inter alia, with the submissions that Shri Amit Kumar Sharma had wrongly been placed at serial number 1 in the order of merit; and the Selection Committee had violated the norms of maintaining minimum distance between two fuel stations located along the State Highways/MDR's/ODR's. It was submitted that as per the report of Public Works Department, the distance of land offered by the candidate at No. 1 was only 66 metres as against the requisite 300 metres from the existing fuel station.
(3.) A learned Single Judge of this Court considered the said writ petition on 12.04.2010 and without issuing notices and without going into the merits, proceeded to dispose of the petition with the directions to the competent authority to examine the petitioners' complaint/representation said to be pending and to pass a speaking order thereupon. The order dated 12.04.2010, as passed in CWP No. 4875/2010 reads as under: - "Instant petition has been filed by petitioners who are applicants for allotment of retail out -let (petrol lump) at Udaipurwati (Jhunjhunu). However, provisional mark -sheet prepared by respondents authority after scrutiny of the forms of candidates, petitioners have been placed at S. No. 2 in order of merit. One of the objections raised is that while placing respondent -5 at S. No. 1 in order of merit, the selection committee has violated norms for the access for fuel stations, service stations & rest areas along State Highways/MDR's/ODR's having been laid down by Public Works Department, Government of Rajasthan vide Circular dt. 27/12/2004 (Ann. 2). Counsel submits that Cl. 6.2 of Circular (Ann. 2) clearly postulates that minimum distance between two fuel stations alongwith State Highways/MDR's/ODR's would be 300 mtr. in case of plain & rolling terrain in Non -Urban (Rural) Areas and as per report submitted by AEN PWD, the distance in case of present situation is only 66 meters, for which petitioners have made complaint to respondents authority vide representation dt. 08/3/2010 (Ann. 4). Counsel submits that the matter has not yet been finalized so far and any further action if taken by respondents pending complaint for consideration, certainly it would cause prejudice. Without going into merits of the matter, the writ petition is disposed of with the direction to the respondents (competent authority) to examine petitioners' complaint/representations pending with it and pass a speaking order within 15 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order and the decision may be communicated to the petitioners who if still feel aggrieved, will be free to avail the remedy under law.";