Sunil Kumar Garg, J. - (1.) This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner against the respondents on 21.1.2004 with the prayer that by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the advertisement Annex.2 dated 14.3.2002 by which applications were invited for appointment of dealers for LPG Dealership in various District of Rajasthan, be quashed and set aside and the respondents be directed to issue fresh advertisement in pursuance of the new policy for appointment of LPG Distributors.
(2.) The case of the petitioner as put forward by him in this writ petition is as follows:- The petitioner has obtained degree of Graduation in Arts from Jai Narain Vyas University, Jodhpur in the year 2002 and he is unemployed educated youth and wished to set UD his own business and he is resident of Jodhpur District and a copy of the ration card is marked as Annex.1. An advertisement (Annex.2) dated 14.3.2002 was issued by the respondent No. 2 Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited (for short 'Corporation') inviting applications for appointment of dealers for its LPG Dealership in various Districts of Rajasthan and in that advertisement Annex.2, it was made clear by the respondent No. 2 Corporation that the candidate applying for the dealership should be resident of the District or nearby District in which the dealership was applied for. According to the petitioner, though he was eligible to apply for the dealership of LPG at Merta City in Nagaur District in General Category, but as per the advertisement Annex.2, the applicant for this dealership was to be resident of Churu, Jhunjhunu, Sikar, Nagaur, Bikaner and Hanumangarh Districts and since he was resident of Jodhpur District, therefore, he could not apply for the same inspite of the fact that he was interested in applying for the dealership of LPG at Merta City. However, he did not challenge the advertisement Annex.2 at that time as the selection process was stayed by the respondent No. 2 Corporation. The further case of the petitioner is that on 14.12.2003, an advertisement Annex.3 was issued by another Petroleum Corporation i.e. the Indian Oil Corporation inviting applications for appointment of dealers for its LPG Dealership in various Districts of Rajasthan and in that advertisement Annex.3, the eligibility criteria of a candidate applying for the dealership belonging to a particular District was no more. Similar advertisement was issued by the Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. inviting applications for appointment of retail outlet dealers in various Districts of Rajasthan and in that advertisement also, the eligibility criteria of a candidate applying for the dealership belonging to a particular District was no more. However, the respondent No. 2 Corporation has not issued any fresh advertisement for appointment of LPG dealers and rather it has adopted the policy of calling the persons, who had applied earlier in pursuance of the advertisement Annex.2 and a copy of one such call letter dated 7.1.2004 is marked as Annex.4. Furthermore, though procedure for selection of dealers and distributors of LPG has been changed by the Petroleum Companies in pursuance of the directions issued by the Union of India from time to time and the policy, which was embodied in the advertisement Annex.2 has been scrapped later on as now the restriction of a particular District has been abolished, which is evident from the advertisement Annex.3 issued by the Indian Oil Corporation, but the respondent No. 2 Corporation has not issued any fresh advertisement abolishing the restriction of a particular District and rather it has adopted the old policy and called the persons, who had applied in pursuance of advertisement Annex.2. Hence, this writ petition with the prayer as stated above. In this writ petition, the main grievance of the petitioner is as follows - (i) That after issuance of advertisement Annex.2 dated 14.3.2002, advertisement Annex.3 dated 14.12.2003 inviting applications for appointment of dealers for LPG Dealership in various Districts of Rajasthan was issued by the Indian Oil Corporation wherein the eligibility criteria of a candidate applying for the dealership belonging to a particular District was no more and a similar advertisement was also issued by the Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. and therefore, a fresh advertisement should have been issued by the respondent No. 2 Corporation abolishing the eligibility criteria of a candidate belonging to a particular District and adopting of old policy and calling of persons, who had applied in pursuance of advertisement Annex.2, was ex-facie illegal and discriminatory. (ii) That policy of the respondent No. 2 Corporation in prohibiting a person from applying for the LPG dealership for a particular District if he was not a resident of that particular District, is discriminatory and further, the respondent No. 2 Company is making discrimination between two similarly situated persons on the basis of their residence and therefore, the action of the respondent No. 2 Corporation is violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution of India. A reply to the writ petition was filed on behalf of the respondents No. 2 to 4 and they have taken a preliminary objection to the effect that since the advertisement Annex.2 was issued on 14.3.2002 and the writ petition has been filed on 21.1.2004, therefore, this writ petition deserves to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches. Apart from the above, it has been further submitted by the respondents No. 2 to 4 that since the petitioner has not applied for LPG dealership in pursuance of advertisement Annex.2, therefore, the petitioner has got no legal right to challenge it nor he can challenge the policy decision of the Government. Further, this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India shall not interfere with the policy decision of the Government. Therefore, from this point of view also, the petitioner has got no case. Furthermore, advertisement Annex.2 as issued in accordance with the terms of the policy prevailing at that time and in that advertisement Annex.2, through Annex.R/2/1, a corrigendum was made, which was published in the Rajasthan Patrika as well as Dainik Bhaskar on 14.3.2002 and by that corrigendum Annex.R/2/1, it was made clear that the person, who was resident of District Nagaur could only apply and other Districts such as Churu, Jhunjhunu, Sikar, Bikaner and Hanumangarh were wrongly mentioned in the advertisement Annex.2. Since the petitioner has not applied for LPG dealership in pursuance of advertisement Annex.2, therefore, he is not entitled to question the same. On point of calling persons for interview in pursuance of advertisement Annex.2, it has been submitted by the respondents No. 2 to 4 that those persons, who were found eligible, have been called for interview and by doing so, no illegality has been committed by the respondents No. 2 to 4. Hence, no case for interference is made out and this writ petition deserves to be dismissed. A rejoinder has also been filed by the petitioner. Thereafter, an application has been filed by the respondents No. 2 to 4 stating that the respondent No. 2 Corporation has recently issued an advertisement dated 23.2.2004, a copy of which is makred as Annex.R2/7, which was published in the Rajasthan Patrika and Hindustan Times and by that advertisement Annex.R2/7, a new LPG Distributorship has been advertised for location Merta under the Bikaner LPG Territory, which finds place at serial No. 8 and since it is a new outlet, therefore, it is going to be allotted in accordance with the new guidelines and under the new guidelines, there is no restriction of residence and thus, it is open for the petitioner to apply for the same under the newly advertised LPG Distributorship through advertisement Annex.R2/7 and when this being the position, this writ petition has become infructuous and the same be dismissed as such.
(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents and gone through the materials available on record.;