Judgment:
Ashok Kumar Mathur, J.
1. The petitioner by this writ petition has prayed that Respondents No. 1 to 3 may be restrained from awarding dealer-spip of retail out-let of petrol and high speed diesel on Hanumangarh Road at Sri Ganganagar.
2. The petitioner is resident of Sri Ganganagar. Respondent No. 2 issued an advertisement which was published in daily newspaper 'Rajasthan Patrika' for grant of dealership/out-let for sale of petrol and high speed diesel The out-let was required to be established between a mile stone of 1.5 km. to 2.5km. to Hanumangarh Road at Sriganganagar. The advertisement further required that the applicant must be having an educational qualification as Matriculate or its equivalent. He should not have any close relation with the person engaged in dealership or distribution of any oil company. It was further required that the applicant should not be less than 18 years and he should not be more than 50 years of age on the date of application. The application was required to be in the proforma. The petitioner applied and he was called for interview. Thereafter, some correspondence transpired and that the petitioner felt assurred that he was likely to be granted dealership. It is further averred that the Sales Officer Shri R.N. Talwar visited Sri Ganganagar and made an enquiry from the petitioner whether he is involved in any case of Essential Commodities or not. The petitioner could not get any answer as such he made enquiries and it was found that respondent No. 3 made recommendation for allotment of dealership to respondent No. 4. It was further revealed that respondent No. 4 did not file the application in the proforma. The petitioner submitted that respondent No. 4 was not entitled for a dealership because the maximum age limit for grant of dealership was 50 years on the date of the application and the respondent No. 4 was above 50 years of age the date of application. It was further submitted that on Vinay Kumar son of respondent No. 4 is having the retail out-let dealership of the respondent at village Kenchia District Sri Ganganagar. The dealership is working in the name and style of Highway Filling Station, Kenchiya. The petitioner made a representation on these lines. It is submitted that on 22-2-1986 the petitioner came to know that the respondents No. 1 to 3 are granting dealership to respondent No. 4 though he is disqualified and is not entitled for it. In this back ground the petitioner approached this Court by filing the present writ petition.
3. A return has been filed by the respondents and they have submitted that after having scrutinised the matter they came to the conclusion that the respondent No. 4 is ideally suited for the out-let/dealersship. The respondents in the return have submitted that it is wrong to say that the applications were invited in the prescribed proforma and it was open for the incubments to send their applications on plain paper. It is also denied that Vinay Kumar son of respondent No. 4 is a dealer of respondent No. 2. It is averred that on enquiry it was found that the non-petitioner No. 4 faced the proceedings under the Essential Commodities Act but he was subsequently acquitted by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sri Ganganagar. It was also denied that respondent No. 4 concealed his age in any manner. It was also stated that at the time of submission of application the respondent No. 4 had stated that his son was not a dealer of the answering respondents or of any other oil company. The allegation of arbitrarily awarding the dealership has been denied. So far as age part is concerned it was found that the respondent No. 4 was within age.
4. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties. After considering the arguments I am of the view that this case does not warrant any interference by this Court. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has emphasised on two aspects namely, regarding age, relationship of respondent No. 4 with one Vinay Kumar who is said to be dealer of oil products of respondent No. 2. So far as the relationship of Vinay Kumar with respondent No. 4 is concerned the same is not disputed. But the answering respondent No. 2 Indo Burma Petroleum Co. has very categorically said that Vinay Kumar is not its dealer in any respect. Therefore, this argument does not cut any ice.
5. So far as the question of age is concerned, there is much controversy whether the date of birth of respondent No. 4 is 1929 or 1934. The respondent No. 4 in his reply has deposed that he is not above age i.e. beyond 50 years at the time of application. Respondent No. 4 submitted that his date of birth is 20-2-1934 and accordingly he was only 47 years and 9 months in July 1981. In support of this the original document was also summoned and he was asked to produce his matriculation certificate. The original matriculation certificate was produced for my perusal and after perusing that I am satisfied that respondent No. 4 at the relevant time is not over age so as to disentitle him from dealership.
6. Mr. Lodha, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that there is some over writing in the original copy. But having perused the original certificate which was placed before me in original I am satisfied that the date of birth of respondent No. 4 is 1934 and not 1929 as alleged by Mr. Lodha. Moreover, the age in such grant of dealership is not that material that will disentitle any incubment. The advertisements are normally issued and they are not in such a statutory nature. If there had been any malafide or any criminal case is pending against respondent No. 4 that would have been a matter for consideration for not granting him the dealership. But having regard to the facts and viewing the matter from over all points of view I think that the grant of dealership in favour of respondent No. 4 cannot be said to be arbitrary or malafide.
7. Mr. Lodha has invited my attention to Som Prakash Rekhi v. Union of India and Ors and Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. The International Airport Authority of India & Ors : (1979)IILLJ217SC ). So far as the proposition of law is concerned in both these authorities there is no quarrel. But whether they can have any bearing in the present case or not. In the present case I have examined the Matter oh merits and I have found that the grant of dealership in favour of respondent No. 4 is neither arbitrary nor malafide. Therefore, this case does riot call for any interference by this court. As such both the cases cited by the learned Counsel cannot render any assistance to the petitioner.
8. In the result, I do not find any merit in this writ petition and the same is dismissed.
9. The parties are left to bear their own costs.