Rajendrakumar Chunilal Patel vs Sabarmati Gas Limited Vs

A.Y. Kogje, J

These two petitions challenge the decision of the respondent - Sabarmati Gas Limited in allocation of Commercial Natural Gas Station (CNG). Both the petitions raise identical question of fact and submissions made are also identical. Hence, with consent of learned Advocate/s, both the petitions are taken up for joint hearing and are disposed of by this common order. However, the facts are taken up from Special Civil Application No.21426/2019.

Learned Advocate for the petitioner submits that in response to the public advertisement for one particular area namely Gozariya Visnagar Straight Highway No.71, the petitioner had made an application. However, the petitioner was not made aware of the decision for a long time and thereafter, upon enquiry it came to the knowledge of the petitioner that one - Ilaben Ashwinbhai Patel has been allotted the CNG Station for the area - Gozariya Visnagar Straight Highway No.71.

Learned Advocate for the petitioner submits that the case of the petitioner is on a better footing as the location is more suitable for the purpose of setting up of CNG Station. It is submitted that others had also applied, however for the reasons best known, the respondents have favored the said - Ilaben Ashwinbhai Patel, though her location is not suitable for the business.

Learned Advocate submitted that the petitioner made representations on two occasions clearly stating out the factors which are in favour of the petitioner and against the successful allottee, however, none of such representations have been considered. The petitioner therefore, made an application under Right to Information Act wherein the application was replied to by a communication dated 06.11.2019. It is after that the present petition is filed. It is further submitted that the respondent - Sabarmati Gas Limited is a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India and therefore, is amenable to the Writ jurisdiction. Learned Advocate for the petitioner has relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ajay Hasia v. Khauid Mujib Sehravardi reported in Laws (SC) 1980 11 33 drawing attention of this Court particularly to Paragraph 12 of the said judgment.

The Court has taken into consideration the submissions made and the pleadings on record. From the outset, the petitioner from the pleadings has not been able to make out a case to define the respondent - Sabarmati Gas Limited within the definition of 'State' as contemplated under the Constitution of India. The criteria which the petitioner has urged to be considered, i.e. the Managing Director is an appointed IAS Officer of the State and that the respondent Company is a joint venture of GSPC and BPCL, both of which are Government Companies, in the opinion of the Court is not enough to term the respondent Company within the definition of 'State' as particularly when there are no pleadings to support the case which according to the petitioner can be covered under the criteria mentioned by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgment of Ajay Hasia (supra).

The Court has taken into consideration the reply of the respondent Company dated 06.11.2019, wherein it categorically stated that the offers in accordance with law have been considered by the Evaluation Committee which consists of experts. The Court is not inclined to enter into the disputed question of fact by comparing the allocation which is better as the same is required to be carried out by an Expert Committee which in the present case has been carried out. It also appears that the petitioner has not challenged the evaluation criteria nor has he challenged the procedure adopted by the Evaluation Committee. In absence of such challenge, the Court cannot open the avenues for comparing the offers made by the bidders in Writ petition. Lastly, it appears that pursuant to the advertisement and scrutiny by the Evaluation Committee, a person is already allotted with the Franchisee for the CNG Station and the petitioner in his petition has sought for a prayer to quash and set aside such allocation. However, from the cause title, such an individual is not even made a party respondent and hence, also the petition is not required to be entertained at this stage.

In view of the above, the petitions deserve to be dismissed and are hereby dismissed.