P.K. Palli, J.
1. Respondent no. 3 Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. invited proposals through applications for appointing Distributor in the town of Partabnagar Dist. Chittorgarh. These applications were invited in open category.
2. After scrutiny the persons who had applied were called for interview by respondent no. 4, i.e. Oil Selection Board, Rajasthan, Jaipur. The petitioners who had applied in consequence to the advertisement appeared for the interview on 8th July, 1994 and vide communication dated 21st September, 1994 the petitioners were informed about their non-selection. It is said in the petition that respondent no. 5 was selected though he was not qualified to be considered for the Distributor-ship.
3. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that as per eligibility criteria mentioned in Annex. 1 as Item No. 2 the persons applying were required to be the resident of the concerned district during preceding five years. Though respondent no. 5 belong to District Chittorgarh but was not residing during the last five years and was living in Mandsaur (M.P.). For this purpose my attention has been brought to a registration in respect of a motor vehicle where address given by respondent no. 5 is Kela-Khan. These documents have been placed on record as Annex. 6 and Annex. 7.
4. The second objection that has been raised by the learned Counsel is that respondent no. 5 was not within the required income group. For this purpose a certificate Annex. 8 has been pressed in service alleging that respondent no. 5 was dis-qualified as income of his family wa more than 50.000/- during the last year.
5. Lastly, the learned Counsel contends that appointment of respondent no. 5 as Distributor of Indian Oil Corporation may be quashed and the respondent may be directed to reject his candidatures and to re-consider the whole matter and thereafter take a fresh decision.
6. In reply, Mr. Mridul, learned Senior Advocate appearing for respondent no. 5 has brought to my notice several documents which have been placed on reord showing the petitioner to be a bonafide resident of Based The. Pratapgarh. One such document is by Dy. S.P. Pratapgarh is Annex. 5/3 on record. Annex. 5/4 is the Electoral Roll of 1994. Annex. 5/5 is the certificate of Board of Secondary Education. Annex. 5/6 is the mark-sheet. Annex. 5/7 is the Jamabandi of Basad 2040-2051. Annex. 5/8 is Rent Note regarding shop and room dated 8.11.1994. Another important document placed by respondent is Annex. 5/9 which is an Insurance Cover Note showing residence of the respondent. Electoral Rolls in respect of the other years have also been placed along with the reply. There is a report made by the Teshsildar Annex. 5/15. All these documents clearly make out that the respondent no. 5 is a bonafide resident of Basad Tehsil Pratapgarh in the State of Rajasthan.
7. To meet the Second contention of Mr. Bhoot Mr. Mridul has pointed out Annex. 5/2 dated 11th October, 1993 showing the income of respondent no. 5 as Rs. 24,000/-. There is another document Annex. 5/7 showing the land holding of respondent no. 5 which is 1.09 bighas only. Some other material has also been brought to my notice which have been filed with the reply to the rejoinder. These are certain reports made by the Teshsildar and have been placed as Annex. 5/15 to Annex. 5/17.
8. Mr. A.L. Chopra, appearing for respondent no. 2 to 4 and Mr. S.S.L. appearing for respondent no., 1 submit that the Distributor-ship has been rightly given to respondent no. 5 after looking into all antecedents. There was no violation of any rules nor any favour was done in selection of respondent no. 5
9. After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties and after perusing the pleadings and other material placed by the parties on the record I am of the firmed view that the writ petition is wholly misconceived. The learned Counsel for the petitioner Mr. Bhoot has not been able to persuade me to take a different view in the matter. Both the contentions raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner have been sufficiently rebutted by the respondents. Moreover, I am futher of the opinion that in such type of matters the choice has to be of the authority who is offering the dealer-ship to find out as to who is the most suitable person to whom a dealer-ship or an agency of the kind has to be granted. This Court is not supposed to interfere in such type of selections unless something glaring is surfaced. No case of malafides or any undue favour is even remotely suggested.
10. The writ petition warrants no interference and is consequently ordered to be dismissed at the admission stage.