THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION No.18587 of 2014 Dated : 07.08.2014 Between:
Suresh Barigala, S/o B.Peruru, 30 yrs., R/o H.No.3-5/8, Pedakomera, Thotamula Village, Gampalagudem Mandal, Krishna District.
.. Petitioner And Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited, South Central Zone-Retail, Hyderabad, Rep. by its General Manager (Retail), Parishram Bhavan, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad and others .. Respondents This Court made the following :
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION No.18587 of 2014 ORDER :
The first respondent - Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited, published a notice on 13.09.2011 calling for applications for appointment of Retail Outlet Dealers at various places in the undivided State of Andhra Pradesh and one of the locations notified was Gampalagudem, Krishna District. The petitioner, 4th respondent and certain others participated in the selection process.
Selections were finalized and merit list was drawn on 11.02.2012. In the merit list, the petitioner was shown as No.1 and the 4th respondent was shown as No.2. The 4th respondent complained on 09.03.2012 alleging that the tie-up volume affidavits given by the petitioner were fake, and therefore, the petitioner should be disqualified. The matter was examined, and having found that the complaint was not valid, the same was rejected by order dated 08.10.2012. The 4th respondent submitted a fresh complaint on 23.04.2013 raising similar allegation. This time, the respondent-
corporation examined the matter in detail and found that the persons, who gave tie-up volume affidavits, have changed their statement and denied their signing on the affidavit, and therefore, the corporation decided to ignore tie-up volume affidavits given to them. Earlier, the petitioner was awarded 5 marks based on the two tie-up volume affidavits given by two persons, and on account of the subsequent developments, the respondent-corporation decided to reduce 5 marks from out of total marks awarded, and after deduction of the said marks, it was found that the petitioner cannot included in the merit list. Accordingly, the impugned order was passed on 06.06.2014, which is assailed in this writ petition.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that according to the notification, it is required that a prospective dealer should also have sufficient backing with a large volume purchase support, and in such a case, the dealer would be entitled to award higher marks in the process of selection. As per the norms prescribed by the respondent-corporation, a person is required to furnish tie-up volume affidavits and if the tie-up volume affidavits show that he has tie up for 1/3rd or higher of the estimated sales potential, the person is entitled to full 5 marks, but if the tie-up volume affidavits did not reach that level, proportionately marks would be awarded from out of the total 5 marks earmarked for this purpose. He further submits that the expected sales turn over was 1,60,000 kilo liters per month, and therefore, minimum of 50 kilo liters was required as tie-up volume, to enable the person to get 5 marks. He also submits that since the two tie-up volume affidavits furnished by the petitioner were cumulatively come to 81.15 kilo liters, the petitioner was awarded full 5 marks, but on account of subsequent decision, 5 marks were deleted.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that in addition to two tie-up volume affidavits furnished by the petitioner, which were now sought to be ignored, the petitioner has furnished additional tie-up volume affidavits and those tie-up volume affidavits cannot be ignored for the purpose of awarding appropriate marks under this heading. Learned counsel also contends that according to the understanding of the petitioner, the very same two persons, who gave the tie-up volume affidavits to the petitioner, also gave tie- up volume affidavits in favour of the 4th respondent and since the respondent-corporation does not trust the bonafidies of these two persons i.e., T.V.Raghavaiah and A.Satyanarayana, proprietor of Satya bore wells, even in the case of 4th respondent these two tie-
up volume affidavits should be ignored, and there should be a fresh valuation.
4. Sri B.Mayur Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited submits that the two persons named above, gave their tie-up volume affidavits to the petitioner in support of guaranteed fixed amount of lifting of petroleum products from the proposed retail outlet. Subsequently, in their statements made in April, 2014 before the officers of the respondent-corporation, by way of sworn affidavits, they have stated that they did not sign on the earlier notarized affidavits and they did not give any such assurance to the petitioner. However, immediately thereafter they made further statements, this time stating that the notarized affidavits which were filed by the petitioner along with the application for dealership were actually signed by them and they are genuine. The changing of stand by these two persons is not appreciated by the respondent-
corporation. Therefore, the respondent-corporation sought to ignore the two tie-up volume affidavits of those two individuals for the purpose of evaluating the marks. Learned counsel therefore submits that the decision taken by the respondent-corporation in reducing the marks to the petitioner is valid and there is no illegality.
5. On instructions, learned Standing Counsel submits that if these two persons have given any tie-up volume affidavits to any other applicant including the 4th respondent even those tie-up volume affidavits will not be considered for the purpose of awarding of marks under this heading and the petitioner cannot have any apprehension on this score, as the stand of the respondent-
corporation is very clear.
6. As evident from the pleadings and the submissions made by both the learned counsel, admittedly these two persons, whose tie-
up volume affidavits relied upon by the petitioner were accepted and originally full marks were awarded to the petitioner, have changed their stand frequently. No doubt earlier the matter was considered on the complaint of the 4th respondent and the same was rejected, but on the second complaint, the matter was looked into more seriously. The respondent-corporation noticed that the persons have changed their stand frequently and therefore decided to ignore their commitment towards tie-up volume.
7. Similar issue has come up for consideration before this Court in Mathi Vidya Sagar V. M/s.Hindustan Petroleum Limited in W.P.No.27310 of 2011. It was a converse case.
In spite of changing of stands, the respondent-corporation sought to rely on the tie-up volume affidavits to grant dealership. When the same was challenged, this Court found fault with relying upon the original affidavits given along with the application since subsequently, the persons have changed their stand. In this case also, the deponents to the tie-up commitments are educated persons and they gave affidavits on oath changing their versions.
Thus, no credence can be given to the said statements. Therefore, the decision of the respondent-corporation in seeking to ignore the tie-up volume affidavits given in favour of petitioner by the two persons i.e., T.V.Raghavaiah and A.Satyanarayana cannot be found fault with.
8. In the report of the committee, dated 30.05.2014, which is the basis to pass the impugned order, dated 06.06.2014, the committee sought to offer the dealership to the second empanelled candidate i.e., the 4th respondent herein, who also seems to have submitted the tie-up volume affidavits issued by the very same persons who gave the affidavits to the petitioner. Thus, if these two persons have given the tie-up volume affidavits to the 4th respondent, no credence can be given to such commitment to the 4th respondent also.
9. According to the learned counsel for petitioner, he has given some more tie-up volume affidavits and as per the policy of the respondent-corporation, the petitioner is entitled for awarding of appropriate marks for the tie-up volume affidavits given by him, awarding of appropriate marks depending on tie-up volume commitment and said commitments cannot be ignored. The selection policy has not imposed any restraint on number of tie-up volume affidavits. It only prescribed volume. Awarding of marks on this count is intended to ensure that prospective dealer has sufficient commercial backing to sustain itself when it commences business. As per the policy, the petitioner is entitled to awarding of appropriate weightage of marks on the additional tie-up volume affidavits.
10. Thus, the matter is remitted back to the respondent-
corporation to re-evaluate the marks secured by the petitioner and the 4th respondent and any other eligible applicant under the heading “weightage of marks to the tie-up volume affidavits” and if the petitioner and 4th respondent have furnished tie-up volume affidavits in support of assured purchase of petroleum products by any other persons other than T.V.Raghavaiah and A.Satyanarayana, the same shall be considered and their merit should be evaluated accordingly, and the dealership shall be accorded to the person, who secures highest marks. The entire exercise shall be completed within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
11. With the above observation, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand closed.
P.NAVEEN RAO, J Date : 07.08.2014 ssp