1. Heard Mr. S.N. Bhatt, learned advocate for the petitioner, Mr. G.N. Shah, learned advocate for respondent No.2, Mr. Chudgar, learned advocate for respondent No.1 and Mr. U.A. Trivedi, learned advocate for respondent No.3. Mr. Rohan Yagnik, learned AGP has appeared for respondent No.4.
2. The petitioner has taken out present petition seeking below mentioned relief:
“12(B) to allow this petition by fixing it final hearing at admission stage by issuing appropriate order or writ in the nature of writ of mandamus or prohibition nor any other appropriate writ or direction or order by quashing and setting aside the selection of respondent No.3 to 5 for L.P.G. Agency at Bhayavadar by respondent No.2 and may issue further order or direction to respondent No.1 and 2 to consider afresh the applications and decide the case of the petitioner on merits.”
3. From the relief prayed for in para 12(B), it can be seen that the petitioner has prayed that selection of respondents No.3 to 5 for allotment of dealership for retail outlet may be quashed and set aside. Differently put, the petitioner has challenged the merit list of the applicants-candidates prepared by the respondent Indian Oil Corporation for the purpose of selecting one of the empanelled applicants- candidates (out of the empanelled three applicants- candidates), for allotting the dealership for retail outlet.
4. The petitioner claims that his name should have been included in the merit list prepared by the respondent Indian Oil Corporation, the empanelment of present respondents No.3 to 5 is unjustified and the said list may be set aside.
5. The petitioner preferred the petition at the time when the respondent Indian Oil Corporation had merely prepared the merit list and any final selection from the applicants-candidates empanelled in the list was not made.
6. Subsequently, substantial events and developments have taken place, however, neither the petition is accordingly amended nor any of the subsequent developments-events including the allotment order passed by the respondent Indian Oil Corporation is brought under challenge.
7. It transpires from the record of present petition that on the basis of marks awarded to each of the applicants-candidates who had submitted their applications, present respondents No.3 to 5 emerged as first three applicants-candidates amongst various applicants who had participated in the selection process for allotment of retail outlet in question.
8. On that basis, the respondent Indian Oil Corporation prepared merit list in accordance with the applicable policy and guidelines. Names of the three applicants-candidates who secured highest marks, comprised the merit list.
9. At that stage, the petitioner approached the Court with present writ petition and challenged the said select list.
10. The petition came to be admitted, however, the request for interim relief was refused by order dated 8.9.2004.
11. What is relevant and pertinent is that subsequently, further process was undertaken by the respondent Indian Oil Corporation. Present respondent No.3 was at Sr.No.1 in the merit list and present
12. After completing the other procedure and formalities and after further evaluation of the said three applicants-candidates in accordance with the policy and guidelines, respondent No.3 was found to be the successful candidate and that, therefore, the dealership for retail outlet in question came to be awarded to present respondent No.3.
13. Letter of Allotment came to be issued by the respondent Indian Oil Corporation on or around 29.7.2002.
14. It is pertinent that the petitioner has not challenged the said entire process including the order dated 29.7.2002.
15. It, however, appears from the record that present respondent No.5, i.e. the applicant who stood at Sr.No.3 in the merit list, had challenged the said order dated 29.7.2002, i.e. he challenged the allotment of retail outlet in favour of present respondent No.3 by filing writ petition being Special Civil Application No.4009 of 2002. The said petition came to be disposed of by the order dated 13.7.2010.
16. Learned counsel for the respondent Indian Oil Corporation and learned counsel for respondent No.3 have submitted that after the Letter of Allotment was issued, respondent No.3 has commenced the retail outlet and thereafter, the entire system for allotting retail outlet has undergone substantial change.
17. In view of the aforesaid facts and subsequent developments and events and more particularly in view of the fact that even after such subsequent events and developments, the petitioner has not challenged the order of allotment, the relief as prayed for viz. to quash and set aside the merit list / selection of present respondents No.3 to 5, is rendered infructuous and cannot be granted at this stage.
18. The petition, therefore, does not deserve to be entertained and it has become infructuous with efflux of time and also on account of subsequent events which are not challenged by the petitioner during the last 10 years.
19. The petition, therefore, is accordingly disposed of. Rule is discharged. No costs.
(K.M. Thaker, J.) Bharat*