In a case involving the forfeiture of complaint fees deposited for thorough enquiry in the irregular selection of a retail outlet dealership, the Patna High Court directed the Indian Oil Corporation Limited (IOCL), its Managing Director, and the Chief General Manager, to conduct a fresh draw of lots for the allocation of the Kishan Sewa Kendra dealership at East Champaran fairly, ensuring the presence of the petitioner and proper video recording.
The Court also directed that the petitioner shall be afforded a full opportunity to participate in the proceedings and access all relevant documents and evidence. The Court also cautioned that till the culmination of a fresh draw of lots, the allocation made in favour of the fifth respondent shall stand suspended.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice G. Anupama Chakravarthy found that the procedure adopted by IOCL and its Officials lacks the necessary transparency and fairness required in matters affecting livelihood. Given the serious allegations of irregularity and the procedural deficiencies, the petitioner’s grievance warrants further scrutiny.
The Bench found that despite repeated requests and submissions including references to videographic evidence of the draw, the IOCL investigated without the petitioner’s knowledge and recommended proceeding with the selection of a private party (fifth respondent), that too, forfeiting the petitioner’s complaint fee.
Since the petitioner’s right to fair participation was denied, and the investigation conducted by IOCL violated principles of natural justice, the Bench concluded that procedural fairness and transparency are indispensable in public selections involving public resources or opportunities.
Briefly, in this case, the petitioner applied for an IOCL Kisan Sewa Kendra dealership in East Champaran following an advertisement. The point of dispute was the drawing of lots conducted between the petitioner and one other candidate, where the slip was drawn without publicly displaying or announcing the same. This culminated in the declaration of another candidate as the winner without showing the slip.
The petitioner immediately objected and subsequently filed a formal complaint along with a fee of Rs. 1,000, alleging serious irregularities and referring to videographic evidence of the draw. Eventually, IOCL informed her that the investigation found her allegations unsubstantiated and dismissed her complaint after forfeiting her complaint fee. The petitioner, therefore, challenged the process as manipulative to favour the other candidate.
Appearances:
Advocate Shakti Suman Kumar, for the Petitioner
Advocate Ankit Katriar, for the Respondent
