AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The petitioners are before this Court assailing the decision of the Single Window Committee dated 24.07.2009 by the official respondents
herein for allotment of sites in Hiriyur Industrial area, more particularly in respect of the Site Nos.4 and 5, 6 and 7 and Site No.8 as at Annexure-H
to the petitions.
The petitioners and respondents No.3, 4 and 5 had participated in the process whereunder the official respondents through the notification
dated 03.01.2009 had sought for application for allotment of sites. The sites in question applied for by them and which are the subject matter in
these petitions are the sites which were available in the layout of the official respondents in Hiriyur, Chitradurga District.
The grievance of the petitioners herein is that though a procedure of allotment of marks was followed by the official respondents to decide the
person to be chosen for allotment, the marks as assigned is not in accordance with the laid down procedure and the same has been done in an
arbitrary manner.
Learned counsel for the petitioners while taking me through the writ petition papers has referred to the document at Annexure-H to the petitions
wherein the consideration has been made and the allotment is indicated. It is contended that the Bench mark that is prescribed for the different
criterion and is provided therein, in all amounts to 100 marks. The person securing maximum marks would be allotted. In that regard, learned
counsel for the petitioners would contend that the requirement as provided has not been adhered to by the official respondents and in order to
contend so, learned counsel for the petitioners in fact would refer to the document produced by the respondents themselves at Annexure-R1 to the
objection statement. In that light, after having referred to the details of each of the candidates as provided therein and the marks as assigned would
contend that in respect of the persons in whose favour the allotment has been made and the marks assigned is not justified.
Learned counsel for the petitioners in that light would contend that insofar as the comparative evaluation of the applicants viz., the petitioners
herein and the contesting respondents No.3, 4 and 5, the marks as allotted is not justified. In that regard, a comparative analysis of the petitioners
and the private respondents would be referred to when each of their case is considered based on the site for which the application has been made.
The contention essentially is that the marks has been awarded though the required educational qualification is not possessed, the respondents are
not the residents of the said area and the other requirements under the notification is not satisfied by them.
Learned counsel for the official respondents would however refer to the objection statement and in that light, on the comparative analysis of the
petitioners and the private respondents herein would contend that the guidelines as required for the evaluation as at Annexure-R2 has been
adhered and in that circumstance, the marks have been allotted to each of the applicants. It is pointed out that the recognized educational
qualification has been provided therein and the marks to be allotted has also been stated. With regard to the residential criteria, the marks has been
bifurcated to different categories and on assigning such marks, the allotment has been made.
Insofar as the multiple sites allotted to respondents No. 4 and 5, it is contended that insofar as the petitioners are concerned, the application was
only for one of the sites as against what had been applied for by respondents No. 4 and 5 and in respect of the same, a comparative evaluation has
been made while in respect of other site allotted to each of respondents No. 4 and 5, the petitioner was not an applicant and therefore no
grievance can be made. Since the comparative evaluation and the consideration has been made in accordance with law, the contention as put forth
by the petitioners herein cannot be accepted and the petitions are liable to be dismissed.
Having taken note of the contentions of the parties, particularly what requires consideration by this Court is with regard to the comparative
analysis made by the official respondents for evaluation while keeping in view the contention that is put forth by the learned counsel for the
petitioners to assail the same. In that regard, it is to be noticed that petitioner No.1 and respondent No.3 were applicants for the site bearing
No.Q8. It is in that view the consideration made in the comparative analysis of their respective applications is required to be noted. The analysis as
made is contained in Sl.Nos.21 and 22 respectively in Annexure- R1 to the objection statement.
The main objection as raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that respondent No.3 does not possess the technical qualification as the
educational qualification indicated against his name is B.Sc., (Agriculture) and therefore, 20 marks as assigned to him is not justified. He therefore
contends that if the said marks allotted to respondent No.3 is deducted, respondent No.3 would have only 53 marks which is one mark lesser than
the petitioner and therefore the application of respondent No.3 ought to have been rejected while allotting in favour of the petitioner.
In this regard, what is necessary to be taken note is that in the guidelines dated 30.06.2009, apart from providing marks for different
categories, the educational qualification for which 20 marks is to be assigned is indicated at Sl.No.2 therein. Insofar as the technical qualification, it
is indicated that the applicant should possess degree in MBA, MCA, M.Tech, B. Tech, B.E., B.Sc., (CS), B.Sc (Agri Science), M.B.B.S, M.S.
etc., and it has been indicated that the said courses are considered as technical courses. In that case, when respondent No.3 possess B.Sc.,
Agricultural Science, the award of 20 marks to respondent No.3 is justified. If that be the position, the total marks of 73 as awarded to respondent
No.3 is in accordance with the guidelines and in a comparative evaluation with petitioner No.1, he was more qualified and therefore the allotment is
justified.
Insofar as the comparative evaluation between petitioner No.2 and respondent No.4 who had applied for the site bearing R5, the
consideration is made in Annexure-R1 at Sl.Nos.7 and 8. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that respondent No.4 is a
resident of Davangere and therefore, he not being a resident of Hiriyur in Chitradurga District ought not to have been awarded any mark under the
residents criteria. He therefore contends that 15 marks as awarded to him is not justified and if the same is deducted, respondent No.4 would have
only 50 marks.
At the outset, it is necessary to be taken note that even if the said marks are deducted, respondent No.4 would have more marks. Be that as it
may, since the residential criteria is also one of the criteria, in that regard if the document at Annexure-R2 dated 30.06.2009 providing for the
guidelines is taken into consideration, at Sl.No.3 the nature of assessment to be made with regard to residential criteria is provided therein. It
provides that if they are the residents of the same District, they are to be awarded 20 marks whereas if they are the residents of neighbouring
Districts, they are to be awarded 15 marks. Likewise, the other places for which lesser mark is also indicated therein. If that be the position, when
respondent No.4 is shown to be the resident of Davangere District, the award of 15 marks is justified. Therefore, the comparative evaluation
would indicate that respondent No.4 was more qualified than petitioner No.2 and the allotment made in his favour is justified.
The next point that would arise for consideration is with regard to the comparative analysis made between petitioner No.3 and respondent
No.5. They have applied for the site bearing No.R.6 and comparative evaluation has been considered at Sl.Nos. 9 and 10 to Annexure-R1. The
contention on behalf of the petitioner is that the marks as provided for the employment generation has not been appropriately provided and
therefore the mark as given to respondent No.3 is to be deducted. In response the learned counsel for the official respondents would point out that
even in respect of same, the guidelines would indicate the manner in which the marks are to be assigned with regard to employment generation as
contained in Sl.No.5 and also the marks to be assigned for the investment to be made in the project. In that regard on a comparative evaluation, it
is pointed out that petitioner No.3 had indicated that the generation of employment would be for six persons for which he has been awarded 8
marks and since respondent No.3 had only indicated employment generation for 5 employees, he has been awarded one mark lesser than
petitioner No.3 i.e., 7 marks.
Insofar as the investment criteria, petitioner No.3 had only provided indemnity bond without indicating the details of the finance while
respondent No.3 had produced loan sanction letter from the Cooperative Society and therefore respondent No.3 has been awarded 15 marks as
per the guidelines. Therefore, in that circumstance also when the marks are taken into consideration, respondent No.3 has secured more marks
which is in accordance with the guidelines. Therefore the allotment made in favour of respondent No.5 is also justified.
In the above background, having made a comparative evaluation based on the contentions, the marks assigned is noticed to be in terms of the
guidelines which has been provided and therefore the challenge as made by the petitioners would not be justified.
One other contention which has also been urged by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that more than one site has been allotted to
respondents No. 4 and 5. At the outset, it is to be taken note that as against the application that was made by respondents No. 4 and 5, the
application as made by petitioners No. 2 and 3 is only in respect of the site Nos. R5 and R6 respectively and insofar as the site Nos. R4 and R7
allotted to respondents No. 4 and 5 respectively, the petitioners are not the applicants and therefore if in respect of the said sites, the allotment is
made in their favour, the petitioners cannot make out a grievance. As already indicated, in respect of sites for which the petitioners and
respondents No. 3 and 5 had applied and competed, the nature of the comparative evaluation made against them has also been referred to in
detail. In that regard, no fault can be found with regard to the nature of consideration as made by the official respondents. Hence the grievance as
put forth by the petitioners in these petitions would not be justified.
Accordingly, these petitions being devoid of merit stand disposed of.