IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH WEDNESDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND FOURTEEN Present HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION No.16084 of 2013 Between:
Jose Mary, W/o. D. Karunakar Reddy, Aged about 38 years, Occ: Business, R/o. Kadavendi Village, Devarappula Mandal, Warangal District.
.. Petitioner AND Bharath Petroleum Corporation Ltd., Second Floor, 8-2-618/2, Road No.11, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad, Rep. by its Chairman & Managing Director & 3 others .. Respondents The Court made the following:
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION No.16084 of 2013 ORDER:
With the consent of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Corporation and the learned counsel for the 4th respondent, this writ petition is disposed of.
2. On 14.04.2012, Bharath Petroleum Corporation Limited issued notification for appointment of regular retail outlet dealership/Rural RO dealership at various locations in the erstwhile State of Andhra Pradesh. One of the locations advertised is at Serial No.789, which reads as under: ‘Banjara Thanda X Road on State Highway 24 RHS (Right Hand Side) toward Suryapet’. The interviews were conducted on 05.02.2013. In the selection declared by the respondent Corporation, the petitioner was awarded 79.20 marks and 4th respondent 90.95 marks and the 4th respondent was declared as first enlisted candidate. The enlistment of the 4th respondent as first candidate is assailed in this writ petition.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri O. Manohar Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for respondents 1 to 3 and Sri V. Ravinder Rao, learned counsel for the 4th respondent.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that as per the advisement, the location of the retail outlet should be on the right hand side of Banjara Thanda X Road towards Suryapet, whereas the location offered by the 4th respondent is on Banjara Thanda X Road towards Jangaon. It is contended that from the advertisement, it is seen that the clear intention of the respondent Corporation is to establish a retail outlet from the road leading from the X Road of Banjara Thanda to Suryapet and selecting the 4th respondent whose location is on the way to Jangaon is illegal.
5. Raising an objection regarding non-selection of the petitioner and selection of the 4th respondent, the petitioner represented on 13.02.2013 to the respondent Corporation. The respondent Corporation in its letter, dated 22.05.2013, replied to the petitioner that the intendment of the respondent Corporation is to locate its retail outlet on the right hand side of the road leading to Suryapet and, therefore, both properties are located on the right hand side and having found that the land offered by the 4th respondent being more suitable in fulfilling the parameters, the 4th respondent is selected. The same is the stand in the counter affidavit filed in this writ petition by the respondent Corporation as well as the 4th respondent.
6. Learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Corporation, Sri O. Manohar Reddy, submits that the intendment of the notification is that if a person stands on the State Highway No.24 facing Suryapet, the land should be located on the right hand side. The mentioning of Banjara Thanda X Road is for the purpose of identification of location and on this location, the property should be on the right hand side of the road leading to Suryapet, if a person faces the road towards Suryapet. Thus, at any place on the right side near about Banjara Thanda X Road. As per the location of the properties offered by the petitioner and the 4th respondent, the location of the property of the 4th respondent is nearer to the X road i.e., 200 meters, whereas the location offered by the petitioner is approximately 1 kilometer. Learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Corporation, therefore, submits that there is no illegality in the selection made by the respondent Corporation.
7. Learned counsel representing the 4th respondent supplements the said submissions of Sri O. Manohar Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Corporation and supports the action of the respondent Corporation.
8. As seen from the notification at entry against Serial No.789, the words used as extracted above do not indicate that the location of the proposed outlet should be on the right hand side towards Suryapet, if a person comes from Banjara Thanda and that the location of the outlet should be towards Suryapet from the X Roads whereas the location of the land offered by the 4th respondent is towards Jangaon from the X Road as contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner. It appears from the plain reading of the entry in the notification that if a person stands on the road on the State Highway 24 facing Suryapet, the outlet should be located to his right. As explained by the respondent Corporation in its counter affidavit, already a retail outlet is existing on the left hand side and, therefore, for better service to the consumers and for better business, the respondent Corporation desired to locate on the right hand side i.e., opposite side of the existing retail outlet. This reasoning is plausible and it cannot be said that the decision of the respondent Corporation is vitiated and that the respondent Corporation, with a mala fide intention to confer undue favour on the 4th respondent, contrary to its own advertisement, has selected the 4th respondent. The petitioner has not alleged mala fides against any individual officer and no officer is impleaded as a respondent. As per the entry in the notification and the reasoning assigned by the respondent Corporation, it cannot be said that its decision to select the 4th respondent is patently illegal warranting interference of this Court. Hence, I see no merit in this writ petition.
9. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition, shall stand closed.
P.NAVEEN RAO, J Date: 18th June, 2014 KL HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION No.16084 of 2013 Date: 18th June, 2014 KL