Smt. J. Kamalamma v. The Union Of India, Rep By Its Secretary,

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAJASHEKER REDDY WRIT PETITON No.17051 OF 2018 ORDER:

It is the case of the petitioner that in response to the notification of the respondent authorities, petitioner applied for retail outlet dealership of M/s.Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited at Dumuluru, Koramangala Ring Road under open category. After verification of the documents produced by the petitioner, the 4th respondent accepted the petitioner's application and called for interview on 24.01.2012 and petitioner attended for the same and that the petitioner was selected and instructed her to submit fresh affidavit and experience certificate along with original certificates. The petitioner submitted fresh affidavit, experience certificate along with original certificates, but respondents have not issued any letter of intent. As such, petitioner filed representation dated 27.04.2017 and also on 15.03.2018 requesting the respondent authorities to issue letter of offer, but the same is also not considered. Aggrieved by the action of the respondents, present writ petition is filed.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri B.Mayur Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for respondents 2 to 5.

Sri B.Mayur Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for respondents, basing on instructions, submits that even in the interview, she mentioned that she has not produced any original certificates. He produced record, wherein the petitioner has signed and she admits that she has not produced original documents.

He also produced proceedings check list for scrutiny of applications for dealerships wherein it is clearly stated that petitioner has not produced documents relating to ownership of land/commitment from land owner. He submits that after scrutiny, the marks secured by the petitioner was reduced fro 58.40 to 48.40 as she has not produced original certificates, as such, she secured less than 50% category. Therefore, the application of the petitioner could not be considered for sanction of outlet dealership. In this case, it is to be seen that the petitioner appeared for interview in the year 2012 and this Writ Petition is filed in the year 2018. There is no whisper about the delay in filing this Writ Petition belatedly. In view of the same, this Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of latches itself. That apart, when the petitioner has applied for dealership outlet at Bangalore, Karnataka State, how this Court got jurisdiction to entertain the Writ Petition is not stated by the petitioner. More so, the petitioner has suppressed the fact that she has received

proceedings dated 13.06.2012 stating that marks awarded to her was reduced from 58.40 to 48.40 on the ground of not furnishing original documents, as such, her case cannot be considered for award of dealership at the subject location.

In view of above facts and circumstances, I do not see any reason to entertain the Writ Petition and same is liable to be dismissed and accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition shall stand closed.

_________________________ A.RAJASHEKER REDDY,J 20-06-2018 kvs

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAJASHEKER REDDY WRIT PETITON No. 17051 of 2018 Date: 20.06.2018 kvs