IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH FRIDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND FOURTEEN Present HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION No.39772 of 2014 Between:
Smt. Wahidunnisa Lalahmed Shaik, W/o. Shaik Elias, Aged 33 years, R/o. D.No.2/400, Nagarajupeta RS Road, YSR Kadapa District – 516 001.
.. Petitioner AND Indian Oil Corporation Limited, Rep. by its Managing Director, G/9, Ali Yavar Jung Marg, Bandra (East), Mumbai – 400 051 & another ..
Respondents The Court made the following:
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION No.39772 of 2014 ORDER:
On 15.09.2013, the respondent Corporation along with two other Corporations issued notification calling for applications for enlistment as LPG Distributors at various locations in the erstwhile State of Andhra Pradesh. One of the locations notified was Rayachoti in YSR Kadapa District at Serial No.370 of the advertisement. The petitioner herein is one of the applicants of the said notification. At the preliminary scrutiny of the applications, the petitioner and others were short listed. Draw of lots was conducted on 21.11.2014. In the draw of lots, one of the candidates was selected and certainly not the petitioner.
2. The petitioner has a serious grievance with reference to the manner in which the draw of lots was conducted. Clause No.13 of the Guidelines for selections envisages procedure for making complaints against any improper selection. Though the petitioner has a serious grievance and was requesting the authorities to elicit information under the Right to Information Act, 2005, on various issues, as admitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner, so far no written complaint is made. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that on the same day, the petitioner lodged a complaint, but he was not given any acknowledgement. However, no proof of filing of complaint is filed along with the writ petition.
3. Learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Corporation, Sri B. Mayur Reddy, submits that if any complaint is received against the selection process or eligibility of selected candidate, such complaints shall be attended to in all seriousness and only after thoroughly verifying the complaints, the selection process would be finalized. According to the learned Standing Counsel, as per the instructions furnished by the respondent Corporation, no such complaint is received. Learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Corporation further submits that such a complaint ought to be generated within a period of 30 days and if no such complaint is filed within 30 days, no such complaint would be entertained.
4. The grievance of the petitioner is that because large number of candidates have applied for this location and the number of candidates eligible after preliminary scrutiny were also large, whereas the room in which the draw of lots held was very small and was not able to accommodate all persons; and the box chosen for conducting the draw of lots was also very small, therefore, apprehends that the selection process was not conducted properly. In order to ascertain the facts, the petitioner applied under the Right to Information Act, 2005, to elicit information, but so far, no information is furnished.
5. Having regard to these facts and the fact that the petitioner has immediately applied for information under the Right to Information Act, 2005, which information is not furnished, it cannot be said that the petitioner has deliberately kept quiet and not made a complaint within 30 days.
6. Having regard to the peculiar facts of this case, the Writ Petition is disposed of giving liberty to the petitioner to make a complaint to the competent authority ventilating his grievance on various aspects regarding the selection process for selection of a dealer in Rayachoti location within a period of one (1) week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and as and when such an application is made, if the selection process is not finalized so far, the respondent Corporation shall consider the said complaint before finalizing the said selection process. 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: 26th December, 2014 Note: Issue C.C. by 29.12.2014. (B/o.) KL HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION No.39772 of 2014 Date: 26th December, 2014 KL