T.H.B. Chalapathi, J.@mdashInvoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks a writ
of certiorari to quash the impugned letter of the respondents in granting retail outset of the Indian Oil Corporation in favour of 3rd respondent.
2. The Indian Oil Corporation-respondent No.1 issued an advertisement on 20th December, 1993 calling for applications to appoint a dealer for
retail outlet of the Indian Oil Corporation at Ropar, Ludhiana and Patiala in the State of Punjab. In pursuance of the said advertisement, the
petitioner as well as the 3rd Respondent applied for the dealership of the retail outlet S.A.S. Nagar (Mohali) in District Ropar. Both the petitioner
as well as the 3rd respondent were called for interview and the 3rd respondent was granted dealership. Questioning the same, the petitioner
approached this Court by way of this writ petition.
3. The granting of dealership to the 3rd respondent was attacked by the petitioner on the ground that the 3rd respondent did not fulfil eligibility
criteria as he is not a bona fide resident of Ropar and he has, in a mala fide manner, got a one Kanal Kothi No. 690 Phase VI, SAS Nagar
(Mohali) on rent in December, 1993 and his family income is more than Rs. 50,000/- per annum and he if also one of the partners and Directors of
Piccadilly Sugar Mills, Pattran and is also a Commission Agent of Samana Anaj Mandi which is functioning in the name and style of M/s Mann
Trading, Samana Mandi and he has also an agricultural farm at Jaur Majra, Tehsil Samana in district Patiala and the 3rd respondent has got annual
income of more than Rs. One lac and, therefore, he is not eligible to the dealership of the Indian Oil Corporation.
4. The 2nd respondent filed a written statement contending that there was no material on record to show that the 3rd respondent was not eligible
to get. dealership and as per information furnished by respondent No. 3 he was eligible and he was called for interview and the 2nd respondent
namely the Oil Selection Board found the 3rd respondent eligible for dealership and selected him.
5. The 3rd respondent filed a separate written statement contending interalia that as the disputed questions of facts are involved, this Court will not
ordinarily exercise its writ jurisdiction in favour of the petitioner. He further stated that he has been residing at Mohali and his daughter was
admitted in the School at Mohali and his income is not more than Rs. 50,000/- and he has not drawn any income either from Piccadilly Sugar and
Allied Industries Limited, Pattran and Mann Trading, Samana Mandi. In fact in the returns filed with the Income Tax Authorities, losses were
shown by both the firms of which he was a partner. He further stated that he owns about 26 acres of land alongwith his brothers and out of the
said land, some trees were planted in 15 acres of land and they ate not yielding any income and in the remaining 11 acres, he is getting a share in
income which is less than Rs. 50,000/ Therefore, he contended that he was eligible for getting the dealership and he was rightly chosen for the
grant of, dealership by respondents 1 and 2.
6. Annexure P-1 is a notice calling for applications for retail outlet dealership. One of the eligibility conditions is that the applicant should be a
resident of Ropar. According to the petitioner, the 3rd respondent is not a resident of Ropar. He filed a Voters list of 1993 as Annexure P-7 of the
writ petition. It shows that the 3rd respondent and his wife were registered as voters in Village Lutki Majra in Tehsil Samana, district Patiala. He
also filed the voters list of 1993 relating to S.A.S. Nagar (Mohali) in Tehsil Kharar, District Ropar as Annexure P-8 to the writ petition. According
to the same, in House No. 690, one Rajinder Singh and his wife Jaswant Kaur had been residing. According to the petitioner, the 3rd respondent
has given his address as House No. 690, at S.A.S. Nagar (Mohali) and the voters list of 1993 (Annexure P-8) falsifies the claim of the 3rd
respondent. Therefore, it cannot be said he is a resident of Mohali in Ropar District. Therefore, the 3rd respondent did not fulfil the eligibility
criteria.
7. On the other hand, the 3rd respondent filed a certificate issued by Vivek High School, Chandigarh which shows that the daughter of the 3rd
respondent is studying in Class VII and she has been residing at House No. 709, Phase VI, Mohali and the correspondence address is shown as
House No. 690 Phase VI, Mohali. He also filed a certificate issued by S.D.O. (C) Kharar vide Annexure R-3/3 to show that the 3rd respondent
is a permanent resident of House No. 690, Phase VI, Mohali and has been residing there for the last six years.
8. In the written statement, the 3rd respondent stated that he originally started living in SCF No. 34 Phase V, and thereafter he started living in the
house of his wife''s cousin bearing No. 709 Phase VI, Mohali alongwith the uncle of his wife. He further stated that daughter of his wife''s uncle
returned to India from abroad and therefore he shifted his residence to House No. 690, Phase VI, Mohali. He further averred that his parental
village is in Patiala Distt. Simply because the name of the 3rd respondent stands registered in the voters list of his native village it cannot be said that
the 3rd respondent has not been residing at Mohali. The voters list only shows that the 3rd respondent has been registered as voter in the particular
constituency, but it does not itself prove the fact that the 3rd respondent was not residing at Mohali. Though a person is residing at a different
place, he may choose to have his name registered at his native place so as to enable him to exercise his franchise at his native place. The voters list
got a little evidentiary value. It is, therefore, not possible to place reliance on the voters list alone to come to the conclusion that the 3rd respondent
has not been residing at Mohali (S.A.S. Nagar). The petitioner also alleged that the 3rd respondent has not an income of more than Rs. 50,000/-.
It is no doubt true that in the eligibility criteria prescribed the income of the family shall not exceed Rs. 50,000/- per annum. Though the petitioner
referred to income tax returns filed with Income Tax Authorities and Sales Tax No. of the 3rd respondent, the same have not been filed in Court.
Further the 3rd respondent has clearly stated in his written statement that his income is not more than Rs. 50,000/- and he has not drawn any
income from Piccadilly Sugar and Allied Industries Limited, Pattran and M/s Mann Trades, Samana Mandi and in the income tax returns of those
two firms, losses were shown. Further the questions raised in this writ petition are disputed questions of fact which cannot be decided in exercise
of the writ jurisdiction.
9. The 2nd respondent-Oil Selection Board found the 3rd respondent eligible for retail outlet dealership. As held by the Supreme Court in Dalpat
Abasaheb Solunke and Others Vs. Dr. B.S. Mahajan and Others, , it is not the function of the Court to hear appeals over the decision of the
Committees and to scrutinize the relative merits of the candidates. The decision of the Selection Committee can be interfered with only on limited
grounds, such as illegality or patent material irregularity in the constitution of the committee or its procedure vitiating the selection, or proved mala
fides affecting the selection.
10. It is pertinent to note that in this case no mala fides are attributed to the 2nd respondent-Board. The Petitioner is seeking quashing of the grant
of dealership in favour of the 3rd respondent on disputed questions of fact, Which cannot be gone into by this Court in writ jurisdiction.
The result is, the writ petition fails and it is, accordingly dismissed, but without any costs.