9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Issuance of a writ of mandamus for dealership. 2. Legality and validity of the dealership granted to another individual. 3. Allegations of arbitrary and unfair decision-making by the Oil Selection Board. 4. Relevance of marks awarded under various categories. 5. Application of the doctrine of promissory estoppel. 6. Procedural fairness and adherence to norms by the Oil Selection Board. 7. Judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 8. Conduct and equity considerations regarding the petitioner. Detailed Analysis: 1. Issuance of a Writ of Mandamus for Dealership The petitioner sought a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to show cause why he should not be awarded the retail outlet dealership at Santipur adjacent to National Highway 34 in the District of Nadia. The petitioner had applied for the dealership following an advertisement issued by respondent No. 1 and had attended interviews but was not selected. 2. Legality and Validity of the Dealership Granted to Another Individual The petitioner challenged the legality of the dealership granted to Gobinda Gopal Pal, arguing that his name was initially empanelled but later struck off. The respondents countered that the Oil Selection Board had considered all applications in accordance with the law and found Gobinda Gopal Pal to be the most suitable candidate. 3. Allegations of Arbitrary and Unfair Decision-Making by the Oil Selection Board The petitioner contended that the Oil Selection Board's decision was arbitrary and unfair, alleging that the marks awarded to him were miscalculated and that irrelevant factors were considered. The respondents maintained that the Board's decision was final and binding, and the selection process was conducted fairly. 4. Relevance of Marks Awarded Under Various Categories The petitioner argued that marks awarded for "full-time working dealer" and "general assessment & extra-curricular activities" were irrelevant and not mentioned in the advertisement. The court noted that while these contentions might have some substance, it was not necessary to pronounce judgment on this issue as the petitioner was not entitled to equitable relief due to his conduct. 5. Application of the Doctrine of Promissory Estoppel The petitioner failed to establish the foundational facts for invoking the doctrine of promissory estoppel. The court found no evidence that the Oil Selection Board had promised the dealership to the petitioner, especially given that many candidates scored higher marks. 6. Procedural Fairness and Adherence to Norms by the Oil Selection Board The court examined the procedural fairness of the Oil Selection Board's decision-making process. The Board had considered various factors, including field reports and financial positions, in addition to interview marks. The court found no procedural impropriety that would warrant interference. 7. Judicial Review Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India The court acknowledged its power under Article 226 to review decisions involving the grant of contracts or distribution of largess by the State. However, it emphasized that judicial review is warranted only if the decision is arbitrary, irrational, or unfair. In this case, the court found no such grounds for interference. 8. Conduct and Equity Considerations Regarding the Petitioner The court highlighted the petitioner's conduct, noting that he had set up a person as a Bargadar against respondent No. 6, which was found to be false by a revenue officer. This conduct disentitled the petitioner from invoking the court's equity jurisdiction. Additionally, the petitioner had participated in the interview process with full knowledge, thereby estopping him from questioning its efficacy. Conclusion The court dismissed the application, stating that the petitioner was not entitled to any equitable relief due to his conduct and the facts of the case. The decision of the Oil Selection Board was found to be fair and in accordance with established procedures, and the court declined to exercise its extraordinary constitutional writ jurisdiction in favor of the petitioner.
|
