9911796707
TMI Blog1995 (2) TMI 456X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... etitioner has contended that initially his name was empanelled but for some reasons the same had been struck off. The petitioner has further contended that on the advice of the Sales Officer of respondents No. 1 he had purchased 50 decimals of land adjacent to the National Highway No. 34. He also contended that at the interview the members of the Oil Selection Board informed him that he would be given the said dealership. The petitioner has further contended that the respondents decided to issue dealership in the name of some person who was not the resident of Santipur in the District of Nadia. 3. The petitioner has filed a supplementary affidavit stating that the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 awarded the dealership in question to Gobinda Gopal Pal. An application for addition of said Gobinda Gopal Pal was filed by the petitioner which was allowed by ah order dated 7-2-1988. The petitioner in the aforementioned supplementary affidavit, therefore, inter alia, questioned the legality/ validity of the dealership granted to the aforementioned Gobinda Gopal Pal. 4. The respondents in their affidavit-in-opposition categorically stated that the Oil Selection Board had considered the case ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... orms and/ or if the discretion exercised by the Board is arbitrary. 8. The learned Counsel in support of his aforementioned contention relies on. (Delhi Transport Corporation v. D.T.C. Mazdoor Congress); (In re The Special Courts Bill, 1978) ; (Ramji Dayawala Sons (P) Ltd. v. Invest Import); , (Y. Srinivasa Rao v. J. Veeraiah); (Gurdeep Singh v. State of J. K.); (M/s. Shri Sitaram Sugar Co. Ltd. v. Union of India); (The Regional Manager v. Pawan Kr. Dubey). 9. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, however, raised a preliminary objection to the effect that as the petitioner has not filed an application for amendment of the writ petition, no relief can be granted to him. It was submitted that in any event the decision of the Oil Selection Board is final and binding on the parties and this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India would not interfere therewith. 10. Reliance in this connection has been placed upon Chinmoy Sarkar v. Md. Shaniat Hossain . 11. It was further submitted that from a perusal of the Writ application it would appear that the writ application had been filed only on the ground of pro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re, prepared consisting of the aforementioned four persons. From the record it further appears that one Sri Madhu Sudan Pramanik obtained 47 marks, Sri Prankrishna Debnath obtained 48 marks, Sri, Ranjit Kumar Mondal obtained 48 marks, Sri Niranjan Debnath obtained 47 marks, Sri Amit Kumar Saha obtained 41 marks, Sri Ashis Kumar Dey obtained 42 marks, Sri Prakash Chandra Sarkar and Sri Prosenjit Roy together obtained 45 marks each, Sri Anil Kumar Ghosh obtained 46 marks, Sri Subhas Ranjan Das and Sri Biplab Ranjan Das together obtained 43 marks each. 17. It is, therefore, clear that apart from the empanelled candidates a large number of other candidates had also obtained 41 marks or above. 18. The petitioner in this application has not stated the foundational facts for invoking the doctrine of promissory estoppel, nor the said principle is attracted in this case. It is not, therefore, possible to accept the contentions of the petitioner that the members of the Oil Selection Board had promised that the dealership would be given to him. Keeping in view of the fact that a large number of persons obtained higher marks than the petitioner, it is not possible to accept the contentio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the chance of the appellant to start a HSD out let at the suit plot. I do hereby allow the appeal and direct the R.O. to correct his records-by deleting the name of Amit Kumar Ghosh as 'Bargadar' against the suit land. 21. The writ petitioner in his reply has no doubt denied the said fact but this Court while considering the said question cannot ignore the aforementioned finding of a competent court of law. 22. Submission of Mr. Kundu to the effect that the members of the Oil Selection Board while considering the matter have taken into consideration irrelevant matters may now be considered. It appears that marks were allotted under the following heads: (a) Personality, business ability, salesmanship -- 30 marks. (b) Finance and Facilities -- 20 marks. (c) Full time working dealer -- 30 marks; and (d) General Assessment and extra-curricular activities -- 20 marks. 23. Mr. Kundu submitted that the awarding of marks with regard to the full time working is irrelevant. The contention of the learned Counsel may have some substance but it is not necessary for this Court as at present advised to pronounce any judgment in this case, 24. I decline to c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... urts Bill, 1978 the Supreme Court while considering the reference made to it by the President of India in terms of Art. 143(1) of the Constitution of India relating to constitutionality of the Special Courts Bill, 1978 observed (at p. 517 of AIR):-- The second infirmity from which the procedural part of the Bill suffers is that by Cl. 7, Special Courts are to be presided over either by a sitting Judge of a High Court or by a person who has held office as Judge of a High Court to be nominated by the Central Government in consultation with the Chief Justice of India. The provision for the appointment of a sitting High Court Judge as a Judge of the Special Court is open to no exception. In so far as the alternate source is concerned, we entertain the highest respect for retired Judges of High Courts and we are anxious that nothing said by us in our judgment should be construed as casting any aspersion on them as a class. Some of them have distinguished themselves as lawyers once again, some as members of administrative tribunals, and many of them are in demand in important walks of life, Unquestionably they occupy a position of honour and respect in society. But one cannot shut o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ther observed (at p, 931 of AIR) :-- So far the interview fixed as the sole criterion in the present case according to the impugned judgment is concerned, the same in absence of a guideline leaves the matter to the whims of the individual officer holding the interview. The exercise of such unbridled power, will be clearly violative of Article 14. The policy referred to by the State Counsel as contained in one of the Government orders and relied upon before us in support of the impugned judgment, therefore, must hold to be unconstitutional: 35. The said decision, however, has no application to the facts of the present case inasmuch as noticed hereinbefore the Oil Selection Board has not only taken into consideration the marks obtained by the candidates at the interview but also various other considerations including the field re ports, their financial position and' other relevant factor 36. However, as indicated hereinbefore, the Oil Selection Board took into consideration at least some irrelevant factors. 37. In Gurdeep Singh v. State of J. K., , the Supreme Court while considering the matter relating to the reservation of seats for admission to MBBS course he ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... position, therefore, is that any act of the repository of power, whether legislative or administrative or quasi-judicial, is open to challenge if it is in conflict with the Constitution or the governing Act or the general principle's pf the law of the land or it is so arbitrary or unreasonable that no fair minded authority could ever have made it. 41. No exception can be taken to the aforementioned proposition of law. 42. In Rohtas Industries Ltd. v. S. D. Agarwal, , the Supreme Court while considering the power of the Central Government under the provisions of Companies Act to investigate into affairs of the Company observed (at p. 716 of AIR) :-- As long back as 1891 the House of Lords was called upon to consider the scope of some of the provisions of the Licensing Act 1872 which gave discretion to the Magistrates in granting certain licenses. The question for decision was as to the nature of the discretion granted. Lord Halsbury L.C. speaking for the House Observed in Susannah Sharp v. Wake-field, (1891) AC 173 at p. 179: 'discretion' means when it is said that something is to be done within the discretion of the authorities that that something is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... position itself. 47. However, in this case, as noticed hereinbefore, the petitioner had set up a person as a Bargadar against the respondent No. 6. a revenue officer has categorically held that the Bargadar filed an application claiming himself to be Bargadar at the instance of the petitioner. The petitioner, therefore, has not approached this Court with clean hands and thus is disentitled to invoke the equity jurisdiction of this Court. 48. Moreover, the petitioner took part in the interview with full knowledge and thus the petitioner is estopped from questioning the efficacy and/or mode thereof. 49. In Munindra Kumar v. Rajiv Govil, the Supreme Court, inter alia, held (at p. 3611 of AIR) ;-- The next question which arises for con sideration is as to what direction would be just and proper in the circumstances of this case. We do not agree with the High Court to quash the entire selection made by the Board for the post of Assistant Engineers (civil). It may be noted that Rajeev Govil, Vivek Aggarwal and Gyanendra Srivastava who remained unsuccessful had filed the writ petitions after taking chance and fully knowing the percentage of marks kept for interview and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... judicial review. 55. Reference in this connection may be made to G.B. Mahejar v. Jalgaon Municipality . 56. Moreover, the respondent No. 6 in his affidavit-in-opposition categorically stated that after grant of the said dealership in his favour he has not only obtained licenses from various authorities, he has also invested a huge sum. Moreover the selection was made in the year 1988. The writ application for one-reason or the other could not be disposed of for about 6 years. If at this juncture that the dealership of the respondent No. 6 is cancelled he will suffer an irreparable injury. Equity, therefore, is in favour of respondent No. 6. 57. In Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. The International Airport Authority of India the Supreme Court while considering that the case of the writ petitioner therein was not considered and an illegality had been committed by the International Airport Authority in granting contract of 2nd class contractor refused to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction. 58. It is now well known that this Court does not exercise its jurisdiction only because it is lawful to do so. 59. Keeping in view of the conduct of the petitioner as also the facts an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
