IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI WEDNESDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CHIEF JUSTICE AND HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT APPEAL NO: 127 OF 2020 Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order dated 10.12.2019 in W.P.No.20170 of 2013 on the file of the High Court. Between: 1. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited, Government of India Enterprises, Bharat Bhavan 4 & 6, Currimbhoy Road, Ballardestate, Mumbai Rep.by its Chairman. 2. Territory Manager, Vijayawada LPG Territory Pinapaka Village and Post, G.Konduru Mandal, Kondapalli, Vijayawada Rural, Krishna District ...APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS AND Sannala Brahmaji @ Brahmarao, S/o. Rama Rao, aged about 43 years, Occ. Business, R/o. Bantumilli, Bandar Mandal, Krishna District. ...RESPONDENT/WRIT PETITIONER lA NO: 1 OF 2020 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay the order passed in WP.No.20170/2013 dated 10.12.2013? pending disposal of the appeal. Counsel for the Appellants: SRI O. MANOHER REDDY, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI V. V. SATISH Counsel for the Respondent: SRI SAI GANGADHAR CHAMARTY, SRI SANNALA BRAHMAJI @ BRAHMARAO(PARTY -IN-PERSON) The Court made the following: JUDGMENT APHC010051392020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH Sr.No:-i73 AT AMARAVATI [3483] WRIT APPEAL NO: 127 of 2020 Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited, and Others ...Appellant(s) Vs. Sannala Brahmaji Brahmarao ...Respondent ********** Advocate for Appellants; Mr. O. Manoher Reddy, Senior Counsel, appearing vice Mr.V.V. Satish Advocate for Respondent; Mr. Sai Gangadhar Chamarty, Mr.Sannala Brahmaji Brahmarao (party in person) CORAM :THE CHIEF JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI DATE : 1^.02.2025 PER DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR. CJ: The respondent herein responded to an advertisement inviting applications in the Open Category for allotment of a L.P.G. Distributorship at Bantumilli Village, Krishna District. In all, it is stated that 39 applications received by Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited (for short, “B.P.C.L.”) along with the application submitted by the respondent herein. Based upon the information furnished in the application and after having gone through the were 2 HCJ a RC, J W.A. No: 127 of 2020 various processes of verification, the respondent herein came to be declared as a successful applicant in whose favour a letter of intent was issued on 06.10.2009. Subsequently, it appears that two complaints were received by the B.P.C.L. regarding falsity of certain information which was provided by the respondent herein for obtaining the distributorship. Based upon the complaints, it appears that the B.P.C.L. issued a show notice, dated 17.09.2010, wherein it was highlighted firstly that the respondent herein had mentioned in his application that he was in possession of a parcel of land, which was situated in Sy.No.111/1, which upon verification was found to be an area falling under a R.T.C. Bus Stand. The explanation rendered by the applicant to the show cause notice was that it was in fact a case of mistake and that the land parcel which was purchased by his grandfather was situated in Sy.No.111/2 in Bantumilli Village. 2. cause Secondly, that the respondent herein had incorrectly reflected that his fixed deposit with the State Bank of India was to a tune of Rs.27,00,000/- whereas it was found to be only Rs.2,70,000/-. Based upon the show cause notice and after having considered the reply submitted by the respondent herein, the B.P.C.L. re-assessed the marks which were allotted in favour of the respondent herein and as against the marks earlier allotted which were to a tune of 96, the same were reduced to 75.3. Needless to say that the process of selection of the eligible candidates 3. 3 HCJ a RC,.J W.A. No: 127 of 2020 for distributorship was based upon allocation of marks upon the criteria of which was contained in Clause 13 of the Brochure issued by the Corporation. 4. For facility of reference, the following was the criteria: Sub Head Parameter Description Max Marks Evaluation Owns@ - Having clear title/ Registered Sales Deed of the suitable land / godown 25 Based information & statement given in application the on Suitable land for LPG storage godown/godown OR Firm offer (5)@ - Having agreement to purchase/lease suitable land/godown 18 Based information & statement given in application the on OR Can arrange 10 Based information & statement given in application Based information & statement given in application the on *Capability to provide Infrastructure and facilities (as on the date application) Owns @ - Having clear title/Registered Sales Deed of the suitable land / shop for showroom 10 the on of Suitable land/shop showroom OR Firm offer @(® - Having agreement to purchase land/shop showroom 7 Based information & statement given in the application the on for suitable for OR Can arrange Based information & statement given in the application 5 the on Sub total marks 35 maxm ’^Capability to provide finance Financially sound Funds (a) Amount in Saving accounts in Bank. ( as date application) (b)Free and un encumbered fixed deposits in scheduled banks or other documents/resource which can be readily converted to liquid cash to cover working Based information given in the application ( FDs / NSCs / Shares / any other investment bonds in the name of self or family members as defined above relationship clause) Award 0.1 marks on every unit of Rs.10,000/- or more in multiples of 10,000/- 18 the on of on under any Rs, and \ 4 HCJ a RC, J W.A. No: 127 of 2020 capital/infrastructure requirements (as on date advertisement) amounts iess than complete unit of Rs.10,000 /-\A/ill not be considered for award of marks. Maximum marks -18. [e.g Value is Rs Marks Rs 10,40,000 Rs 10,49,999 Rs 10,50,000 Rs 18,00,000 & above 18.01 of 10.4 10.4 10.5 In the original assessment wherein the respondent herein had been 5. allotted 96 marks, the reduction of marks from 96 to 75.3 on re-assessment was based upon the reduction of marks from 18 to 12.3 insofar as the financial capacity of the respondent is concerned, and also the reduction from 25 to 10 as regards capability to provide infrastructure and facilities under the head of suitable land for LPG storage godown/godown’. 6. By virtue of our order, dated 08.11.2024, we had directed the appellants herein to recalculate the marks calculated on account of financial capacity as also re-assessing the land parcel falling under Sy.No.111/2 and to place before us the marks allotted on re-assessment, along with the marks which had been allotted to the first four candidates in the process of selection. Apart from this, in regard to the allotment of marks for suitable land, the respondent herein had taken a stand that it was only on account of mistake that he had reflected in his application form that the parcel of land offered by him as suitable for constructing showroom/godown, fell under Sy. No.111/1 whereas the parcel of land, which was offered as suitable, fell under Sy. \ 5 HCJ a RC, J W.A. No: 127 of 2020 No.111/2 and in those circumstances, we had directed the appellants to re assess the land parcel falling under Sy. No.111/2. In compliance to our order, dated 08.11.2024, the appellants undertook the exercise of re-assessing the marks of the respondent herein and upon such re-assessment, has come to a conclusion that the respondent entitled to 90.30 marks and would stand at Serial No.3 in the order of merit. One Mr.Ramesh Rayapu Reddi is stated to have secured 93.33 marks and stands at S.No.1 whereas one Mr.P. V. Rama Lingeswara Rao Gudivada stands at S.No.2 with 92.17 marks and the respondent herein with 90.30 marks, figures at third position, which is contrary to the earlier position, whereby the respondent herein was shown to have secured 96 marks and 7. was stood at S.No.1 with Mr.Ramesh Rayapu Reddi and Mr.P. V. Rama Lingeswara Rao Gudivada at S.Nos.2 and 3 respectively. 8. As per this re-assessment, as against 18 marks which was originally awarded for financial capacity, the same has been reduced to 12.3 as per the new assessment and therefore, the reduction in the marks from 96 to 90.3. 9. Respondent herein appearing in person has contested the reduction of marks allotted for financial capacity from 18 to 12.3. Learned counsel for the appellants would submit that according to the prescribed terms and conditions, every candidate would be allotted one mark for every lakh, which was reflected in the Bank account of a particular 6 HCJ a RC, J W.A. No: 127 of 2020 candidate subject to a maximum of 18 marks. It is stated that in the earlier assessment, the respondent had reflected in his application form, based upon Bank statements, that there was an amount of Rs. 17,21,770/- in the savings bank accounts and Rs.2,70,000/- in the fixed deposit account, for which the respondent herein had been awarded 18 marks. 10. It is stated that contrary to condition 14.2 of the advertisement notice issued by the appellants, the respondent herein had not maintained the amount reflected in the application form for a minimum period of three months. For facility of reference, 14.2 of the advertisement notice is reproduced hereunder: “14.2. AMOUNT IN THE BANK (in case of married applicant family is - self, spouse unmarried son(s)/daughter(s); in case of unmarried applicant family is - self, parents and unmarried brother(s)/unm arried sister(s).)* Attach affidavit as per format given in Annexure-c. The amount mentioned should remain in the bank for minimum period of three months from the date of application or the interview date which ever is earlier.” 11. It was stated that the respondent did not comply with that condition 14.2 of the advertisement notice and withdrew and deposited various amounts intermittently with the result that, on 14.11.2007, the amount which stood in one of the savings Bank accounts of the respondent was only Rs.3,65,787/- which amount was taken as the amount while reassessing the marks. On a perusal of the statement of the account pertaining to the relevant Bank account belonging to the respondent, it can be seen that as on 12. 7 HCJ a RC, J W.A. No: 127 of 2020 n 31.10.2007 when the application was submitted by the respondent, there was an amount of Rs.11,19,787/- in the Bank account, which got reduced progressively to Rs.3,65,787/- by 14.11.2007. However, on 20.11.2007, the balance in the account stood at Rs.8,45,787/- and hovered around the same figure till 12.12.2007, and it increased to nine lakhs and above from 13.12.2007 till 06.01.2008 before falling yet again to Rs.7,18,991/- on 07.01.2008, which fell to Rs.7,67,601/- by 31.01.2008 by which time the three months time would be over. We do not see any reason as to why, while reassessing the marks, the least figure of Rs.3,65,787/-, which stood as the balance amount only from 14.11.2007 to 19.11.2007, was taken as the amount for considering the marks for allocation under the Head ‘financial capacity’ especially when the average amount, which stood in the Bank account of the respondent hovered approximately between 8-9 lakhs in that particular account maintained with the State Bank of India, Chinapandraka Branch, which would otherwise have entitled the respondent to at least four additional marks and the tally would go up to 94.3 and would thus place him at Serial No.1 in the merit list. We would have yet again directed the appellant Corporation to re- 13. determine the marks on the aspect of financial capacity as discussed hereinabove, however, we feel that it may not be absolutely necessary as none of the other applicants, namely Mr.Ramesh Rayapu Reddi and Mr.P. V. 8 HCJ a RC,J W.A. No: 127 of 2020 Rama Lingeswara Rao Gudivada, who secured 93.33 and 92.17 marks respectively, have come forward to make a claim for the said dealership. 14. In fact, in the present case the advertisement notice was issued as early as in the year 2007 and the Letter of Intent was issued to the respondent herein on 06.10.2009 and the same cancelled in 2013, which cancellation was challenged by way of writ petition No.20170 of 2013. The learned single Judge by virtue of judgment and order, 10.12.2019, which is impugned in the present writ appeal, allowed the writ petition primarily on the ground that the respondent herein was physically challenged notwithstanding the fact that he had applied for dealership under the open category. Reliance was placed upon the Apex Court judgments in Shallmar Gas V. Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd^ and Smt. Moumita Poddar v. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd^. It was held that the respondent herein, being a physically challenged person, had already invested huge amount and since the inquiry had been initiated by the appellant/Corporation much after the date of the interview and lot of investment had been made, equities would weigh in favour of the respondent herein in the light of the judgments of the Apex Court referred to hereinabove. 1 (2010) 13 see 760 ^ (2010) 9 see 291 9 HCJ a RC, J W.A. No: 127 of 2020 Learned counsel for the appellants before us tried to convince us that 15. the respondent herein had, right from the beginning, submitted incorrect information in regard to not only the details of the land but also with regard to his financial capacity. Not only this, it was sought to be emphasized that the respondent herein had not complied with the condition of maintaining the balance in terms of clause 14.2 of the advertisement notice and therefore, the action of the Corporation in withdrawing the Letter of Intent was justified. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. 16. Three aspects have been highlighted during the course of arguments 17. with a view to justify the withdrawal of the Letter of Intent issued to the respondent herein. The first aspect is with regard to the furnishing of incorrect information as regards the financial capacity wherein it was stated in the application form that there was an amount of Rs.27 lakhs lying in the fixed deposit account of the respondent herein, whereas it was later found to be only Rs.2.7 lakhs. The second aspect is with regard to the respondent herein not maintaining the balance in the account, as on the date of filing of application for a period of three months, and the third aspect is the incorrect reflection of the Survey Number mentioned by the respondent in his application form wherein Sy. No.111/1 was reflected which turned out to be a R.T.C. Bus 10 HCJ a RC,J W.A. No; 127 of 2020 Stand, whereas the land of the respondent was situate in Sy. No.111/2 in the same area. By virtue of our order, dated 08.11.2024, we had observed that the information provided in the application form as regards the amount of Rs.27 lakhs as also the reflection of the incorrect Survey Number would be nothing but matters of mistake as the respondent would not gain anything by reflecting an incorrect Survey Number in the application form. 18. In addition to this, on a cumulative assessment, the entire amount lying in Savings Bank Account and the fixed deposit account came to above Rs.18 lakhs for which the respondent herein had been granted 18 marks. Based upon the Letter of Intent, the respondent had proceeded to create an infrastructure and it was much later that the appellant Corporation had proceeded to withdraw the Letter of Intent on the aforementioned grounds. Mr. O. Manoher Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants, had tried to bring home the point that a close relation of the respondent herein was holding a key position in the Corporation and therefore, it was on account of his presence that earlier, the Corporation could not conduct a thorough scrutiny on various aspects in reference to the application. Yet, one cannot lose sight of the fact that no action whatsoever has been taken or was proposed to be taken on account of any such Officer 19. 11 HCJ a RC» J W.A. No: 127 of 2020 working in the appellant Corporation, who could be said to have helped the respondent herein in avoiding the scrutiny. Fact of the matter is that the respondent herein did invest a lot of amount in creating the infrastructure in the shape of a godown and storage place, which are the main requirements in running an LPG distributorship. While it may be true that the respondent herein had not maintained the amount, which was reflected in the application form, for a minimum period of three months in the Bank account and yet, the respondent was not disqualified from consideration on that ground by the Corporation and what was sought to be done was to recalibrate the marks that could be awarded to the respondent herein. While the appellant Corporation could have perhaps disqualified the respondent herein, yet having not done so, and further, the clause, regarding maintaining the balance for a period of three months, not prescribing the consequences, makes us believe that the said clause was not mandatory but only directory. 20. In any case, since the entire infrastructure has been made available by the respondent herein, who has been in litigation for the last several years, and since there is no rival claim before us since the time the petition was filed in the year 2013 till date, to throw the respondent herein out of consideration based upon the re-assessment of marks would be nothing but an exercise of futility and would prejudice the respondent herein. Even otherwise, we feel 21. 12 HCJ a RC, J W.A. No: 127 of 2020 I that the respondent herein would be entitled to at least four more marks than what was otherwise awarded on re-assessment, which would make the respondent herein stand at Serial No.1. Be that as it may, we cannot persuade ourselves to take a view different from the one taken by the learned single Judge. The appeal lacks merit and is 22. accordingly dismissed. No costs. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. SD/- V. DIWAKAR DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECmbN OFFICER To, 1. Sannala Brahmaji @ Brahmarao, S/o. Rama Rao, Ro. Bantumilli, Bandar Mandal, Krishna District. 2. One CC to Sri V. V. Satish, Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to Sri Sai Gangadhar Chamarty, Advocate [OPUC] 4. Three CD Copies. ssb HIGH COURT DATED:12/02/2025 JUDGMENT WA.No.127 of 2020 ano-«^ (p Sj] 15 FEB 2025 •73: O Current Section DISMISSING THE W.A. WITHOUT COSTS