HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION No. 29845 of 2014 Date : 9-10-2014 Between :
Basem Dattatreya S/o Konda Babu R/o Kondapuram village and mandal SPSR Nellore district and Indian Oil Corporation Limited Rep by its Regional Manager Vijayawada and another … Petitioners … Respondents The Court made the following:
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION No. 29845 of 2014 ORDER :-
Indian Oil Corporation issued notification dated 30.3.2010 calling for applications for enlistment of Rajiv Gandhi Grameena LPG Vitrak Distributors. One of the locations advertised was in Kondapuram village of Nellore district.
2. In response to the said notification, petitioner submitted his application. The notification requires fulfillment of various conditions, more importantly, three conditions which required to be complied with were i) He must be a resident of the place where distributorship is proposed for location ii) He must have minimum bank balance of Rs.2,00,000/- on the date of submission of the application and iii) Property must stand in the name of the applicant or his family members in the place where the distributorship is sought to be located. After scrutiny of the applications, by letter dated 25.7.2014 respondent corporation intimated the petitioner that he was not residing in the advertised location; that he did not have the minimum balance of Rs.2,00,000/- and did not have the land in the advertised location. Having realized that he has submitted a residential certificate as if he was residing in Toorpupalem, petitioner has obtained another residential certificate of Gudavalluru (Kondapuram) revenue village and submitted the same. Petitioner has also explained that on the date of submission of the application the bank balance was more than Rs.2,00,000/- and he enclosed the property details. By the order impugned in this writ petition dated 19.9.2014, petitioner was informed that his application is rejected on the ground that he was not a resident of ‘Kondapuram’ village and do not have minimum fund of Rs.2 lacs, therefore not entitled. Aggrieved thereby, this writ petition is instituted.
3. Learned counsel for petitioner contends that if the authorities have rejected his application on the ground that he was not originally resident of the distributorship location, he would have rested there, but authorities wanted a clarification and petitioner having realized that though he is actually resident of Kondapuram, since he was living in Thurupalem after death of his mother, as his father was mentally up-set, for some time when he shifted temporarily to look after his father, the certificate was initially submitted, but he is actually a resident of Kondapuram and therefore the same should have been accepted.
4. Counter affidavit filed by respondents.
5. Learned standing counsel submits that petitioner originally submitted the residential certificate of Thurupalem village and as he is not a resident of Kondapuram, the rejection of his application was validly made. Petitioner not being resident of place of location of the retail outlet, he is not entitled to be considered for such location.
6. As seen from the conditions of advertisement, it is mandatory that the person to apply must be a resident of the place where the outlet is sought to be located and in support of the proof that the person is residing in the place of distributorship location, the residential certificate should be enclosed. Admittedly, petitioner has enclosed the residential certificate of Thurupalem village when he applied for distributorship. Application procedure does not envisage consideration of any such request of submission of a revised residential certificate to disclose the residential status of a person as belonging to the place where distributorship is sought to be located. Thus, even assuming that petitioner is a resident of Kondapuram/Gudavalluru, on his own volition he obtained a certificate of residence of Thurupalem and submitted the same along with his application and therefore, the application submitted did not meet the requirements of notification issued and was liable to be rejected. Merely because the respondent authorities have not rejected the application submitted by the petitioner at the threshold, but gave him a notice to submit representation regarding three objections initially pointed out in letter dated 25.7.2014, does not vest any right in the petitioner to contend that subsequent change in the residential certificate ought to have been taken on record and his application ought to have been considered for selection. There may be several such individuals who could have applied if same is permissible. At the same time, respondent corporation ought to have been very careful before entering into correspondence with the petitioner. A false hope was generated in the petitioner by not firmly indicating that he was not eligible for consideration of awarding distributorship. Merely because there was some lapse on the part of the competent authority, petitioner cannot take advantage of his own lapses in not submitting appropriate residential certificate. The conditions of advertisement clearly specify that the candidate must be resident of the location to be eligible to apply and when petitioner applied, the residential certificate filed by him shows that he was not the resident of Kondapuram village. There is no illegality or procedural irregularity warranting interference of this Court. I see no merit in the claim made by the petitioner. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs.
Sequel to the same miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition, shall stand dismissed.
P NAVEEN RAO,J DATE: 09-10-2014 TVK HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION No. 29845 of 2014 Date : 9-10-2014