HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION No.33507 of 2014 DATED : 10.11.2014 Between:
V. Anjan Reddy S/o.Bal Reddy, Aged 32 yrs, Occu : Unemployee, R/o.Aleir Village & Mandal, Nalgonda District. & 6 others .. Petitioners AND Union of India rep., by its Secretary, Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas, Shastri Bhavan, New Delhi & 2 others .. Respondents The Court made the following:
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION No.33507 of 2014 ORDER:
The petroleum Corporations issued notification in Daily newspaper on 15.09.2013 calling for applications for enlistment as LPG Distributors at various places in the undivided State of Andhra Pradesh. One of the locations include Padmashalini Colony, Choutuppal, Nalgonda District, at Sl.No.424 (Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that it is Padmashalini Nagar but not colony). The petitioners herein, submitted applications for consideration for such enlisting. On scrutiny of the applications submitted by the petitioners, the respondent-Corporation vide letter dated 16.09.2014 informed them that the site shown by them for establishment of petroleum showroom is not in the location i.e., Padmashali Colony and therefore, their applications cannot be processed further. Challenging the said rejection, this writ petition is instituted.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the selection is governed by the brochure and guidelines notified by the respondents in April, 2014 Para 6 of the brochure prescribes eligibility criteria for individual applicants. One of the conditions prescribed in Para 6 (viii) is, the person should own suitable shop of minimum size of 3 metre by 4.5 metre in dimension or a plot of land for construction of showroom of the same size at the advertised location i.e., within the Municipal/Town/Village limits of the place, which is mentioned under the column of location in the advertisement. In case locality is also specified under the column of ‘location’, the candidate should own a suitable shop of prescribed criteria in the locality, as per the standard lay out in the said locality.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners also submits that in terms of the above guidelines, the petitioners satisfied the requirements. They own/lease suitable land in the locality and infact more accessible location as compared to others and therefore the rejection is illegal. He further submits that what is contemplated by the locality in Para 6 (viii) is within the area where the retail outlet is proposed to be located the person must have the suitable property and therefore, the rejection of the applications submitted by the petitioners is erroneous.
4. Learned Standing Counsel for the respondent-Corporation Sri Deepak Battacharjee, submits that the locality means place/colony, where a particular outlet is proposed and is distinct from the area. He further submits that wherever, a specific location is identified for the retail outlet, the same is mentioned in the advertisement and referred to few entries i.e., Serial No.422 which is a Housing Board Colony, Bhongir and Serial No.423 which is Ganji, Near Market Yard, Bhongir, Nalgonda District. Where a particular colony is not prescribed, the advertisement specifies the area only. For example Gandipet (Sl.No.447), Nacharam (Sl.No.452) etc., within the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Limits. In such a case within the Municipal/Town/Village, a person can own property or obtain lease to establish office of the retail outlet. Learned Standing Counsel further contends that the petitioners have also admitted in Para No.5 of the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition that they do not have the property in the Padmashalini Nagar but the properties of petitioners are located in adjacent area i.e., Choutuppal Gram Panchayat.
5. As seen from the advertisement read with brochure on selections, the second limb of Para 6 (viii) is more specific. Whenever a particular locality is mentioned for establishment of retail outlet, a person is required to possess the property in that locality and not in the adjacent areas. The location of retail outlet office is for the benefit of the local residents who are enrolled as consumers with the respondent company. Therefore, the respondent company intend to locate the office within the easy reachable point of the residents of the locality where the dealership is proposed.
6. It is to be noted that the relevant clause in the brochure is not under challenge and as seen from the averments in the affidavit, the petitioners have not satisfied the requirements as per the notification. However, they tried to justify acceptance of premises shown by them on the ground that the premises offered by the petitioners are more ideally suited than the properties that can be available within Padmashalini Nagar. However, I am not inclined to go into the issue of whether the location of the petitioners properties are more ideal than others as that is not the issue for consideration. As per the material filed along with the writ petition, and the averments in the affidavit it is clear that the petitioners have not offered properties for location of the office within Padmashalini Nagar. 7. When the authorities have considered the applications and having found that the applications are not meeting the requirements of the advertisement read with brochure and rejected their applications, the decision cannot be said as illegal or arbitrary nor can such a decision be classified as irrational. In exercise of power of Judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Court cannot interfere with the said decision and hold the rejection as illegal.
8. 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 dismissed.
P.NAVEEN RAO, J 10th November, 2014 Rds