1. Heard learned advocates for the parties. During course of arguments, it transpired that the Court may pass appropriate order so that the petitioner as well as respondent no.3 may not have hereafter any grievances with regard to the procedure for considering and granting 'franchise-ship' qua HMR-5.
2. Learned advocate for the petitioner has under the instructions stated at the bar that, in case if the Court is inclined to remand the matter, but to the authorities, i.e. Respondent No.2 – the Selection Committee, for reconsideration from the stage of assessing the applications for deciding eligibility or being qualified for being considered before the Selection Committee, then all other applications made by the present petitioner or the firms in which present petitioner is a partner may be treated as having been withdrawn and no grievance will be made qua selection proceedings in those areas in which it is stated that the petitioner has through his firm applied for franchise-ship, i.e. Franchise-ship GDH-3 and NAD-3.
3. Learned advocate for selection committee /respondent no.2 at this stage contended that, there cannot be any objection to direction for reconsideration. However, the documents adduced by them speak for themselves which would go to show that the action of respondent no.2 was absolutely just and proper and no interference was called for under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
4. Learned advocate appearing for selection committee relying upon the policy containing distribution of grant of franchise-ship to aspirants contained firm's offer having declaration and if one looks at the declaration appended to the application of the present petitioner, then said declaration would go to show that the same is not correct, therefore, the action impugned may not be disturbed in any manner.
5. Learned advocate appearing for respondent no.3 in whose favour decision of selection committee is inuring and where under franchise-ship agreement is also executed on 15/12/2010 has no objection in case if the matter is remanded to the authority from the stage of assessing the application of all the aspirants, in this case there are only two aspirants, namely petitioner and respondent no.3. Their candidature be assessed strictly in light of the policy enunciated and selection committee may pass reasoned order after affording an opportunity of putting forth their case in holding their candidature and against the candidature of each other. At this stage it may be mentioned that this decision is stayed by this Court vide order dated 25/1/2011.
6. In view of above, learned advocate for respondent no.2 submits that when there is clear consensus coming forth from respondent no.3 for reconsideration by selection committee, this Court may not have to elaborate upon the submissions made by learned advocate for respondent no.2.
7. In view of this, the Court is remanding the matter to Selection Committee. The petition is disposed of with the following directions.
(1) The agreement made with Respondent no.3 is hereby quashed and set aside, but not on any other ground, except on a condition made by learned advocate for Respondent no.3 and with a view to enable the Selection Committee to come to a fresh conclusion after affording opportunity to both, i.e. petitioner and Respondent no.3 for adducing their respective cases and pass appropriate speaking order thereon. Once such order is passed, it would be absolutely open to Respondent no.2 to proceed further without much delay in according the Franchise-ship in favour of that selectee.
(2) The Selection Committee shall indicate date of hearing to both, i.e. the petitioner and respondent no.3 as expeditiously as possible, and preferably complete the proceeding within a period of thirty (30) days from the date of receipt of writ of this order.
(3) It goes without saying that now, in light of the directions, order of disqualification made in favour of the petitioner would not survive.
8. With this observation, the petition is disposed of. Rule made absolute to the aforesaid extent. No order as to costs. Direct service permitted.
[ S.R. BRAHMBHATT, J ] /vgn