IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No 5263 of 2007 Ravi Kumar, s/o Shri Shashi Bhushan Kumar Singh, Resident of Village – Mukundpur, Amdadhi, P S – Ekma, Dist – Saran -Petitioner Versus 1 Indian Oil Corporation Limited, Block – A, Mauryalok Complex, 03rd Floor, Dak Bungalow Road, Patna through the General Manager 2 Sr Divisional Retail Sales Manager, Indian Oil Corporation Ltd, Block – A, Mauryalok Complex (03rd Floor), Dak Bungalow Road, Patna 3 D G M (RS), Madhya Pradesh -Respondents *** For the petitioner : M/s N K Agarwal, Sr Advocate & D N Tiwari, Rakesh Kr Singh, Advocates For the IOCL : M/s Anil Kr Jha & Sanat Kr Mishra, Advocates For the Intervener : Mr Anil Kumar Sinha, Advocate *** 6 11.05.2009 On 14.08.2005, an advertisement was issued by Indian Oil Corporation Limited, a Government of India undertaking inviting applications for setting up of retail outlet dealer at Ekma in the district of Saran in Bihar. The advertisement is Annexure-A to the counter affidavit of IOC. The applications duly filled up in all respects had to be submitted by the 05th of September, 2005. Petitioner and one Mukesh Kumar Singh, who is now intervener-respondent, were the only two candidates who were shortlisted for being considered for the said dealership. They were called for interview by the Corporation. This interview was held on 12.12.2005. After that interview, as results were not being declared, the intervener-respondent filed a writ application before this Court being CWJC No 723 of 2006. During pendency of the writ petition, the results were declared which were again challenged in 2 the said writ application but the interview itself was then cancelled and a fresh interview ordered which was then held on 07.02.2006. This interview having been held, these results being declared, was then challenged in the said writ application being CWJC No 723 of 2006 by the intervener-respondent. It appears that on 28.02.2006, the said writ application of the intervener-respondent was dismissed and on basis of the result of the interview dated 07.02.2006, on 01.03.2006, letter of intent in favour of the petitioner was issued. As per the letter of intent, the petitioner was directed to provide land, as undertaken by him, and carry out various construction activities and complete the same within two months. Petitioner started the work. But then again on 16th of March 2006, petitioner was directed by the Corporation to stop all further works. On 22.04.2006, the petitioner was informed that a complaint had been received against petitioner’s selection. The complaint was that petitioner had submitted forged income tax return papers alongwith his application. One Alok Misra, Deputy General Manager (Regional Sales), Madhya Pradesh State Office of IOC was appointed the investigating officer to look into the said complaint. This letter of the Corporation is Annexure-3 to the writ application. Petitioner states that he appeared before the Investigating Officer and satisfied him that there was no forged return submitted by him. In the writ application, it is further stated that IOC, on its own, also made direct enquiries from the Income Tax Office with regard to veracity of the returns filed by the petitioner. The Income Tax Department confirmed that the return, as filed, were genuine and not forged. Inspite 3 of all this when IOC did not recall its stop letter issued earlier, this writ application was filed on 23rd of April, 2007 for a direction to IOC to withdraw the letter stopping the letter of intent. No sooner the writ application was filed, on the very next day, the petitioner was served with a show cause notice that is notice dated 24.04.2007 stating that the advertisement required candidates to submit income tax return for the last financial year which should be for the financial year, 2004-2005 but the petitioner had submitted income tax return for the financial year 2003-2004. The Interview Committee awarded marks on this income tax return of financial year 2003-2004 which was not in line with the requirement as per advertisement. Due to this wrong evaluation, petitioner wrongly declared first in the merit panel. Therefore, the merit panel is required to be reformed for the fresh interview. The petitioner submitted his detailed show cause which is Annexure-6 to the supplementary affidavit of the petitioner. He clearly took stand that for the financial year 2004-2005 that is year ending 31.03.2005, under the provisions of the Income Tax Act, he had time up to October 2005 to submit the return. He submitted his income tax return to the Income Tax Department on 28.11.2005. As such, it was not possible for him to file the copy of the return before IOC which had not yet been filed before the Income Tax Department. Not being satisfied with this, now on 03.04.2008, the letter of intent has been recalled and the said order dated 03.04.2008 is Annexure-7 to the supplementary affidavit and is now under challenge. On behalf of IOC and the intervener, it is submitted that the advertisement was explicit. It clearly provided that 4 the candidate must file his return for the previous financial year which should be 2004-2005. Petitioner, not having done so, it clearly called for a reinterview in the matter. On the other hand, on behalf of petitioner, Shri N K Agarwal, learned Senior Counsel submits that on interview being held on 07.02.2006, the results were not being declared. The intervener-respondent’s writ petition being dismissed on 28.02.2006, the letter of intent was issued in favour of petitioner on 01.03.2006. No sooner petitioner started work on the site, on 16.03.2006, Corporation asked petitioner to stop work on the allegation that it had submitted forged income tax return. When he was cleared of this charge, he was not allowed to resume work. He then filed the writ petition. The moment he filed the writ petition, a new ground was found to withdraw the letter of intent. This conduct of the Corporation speaks for itself. Shri Agarwal then submits that petitioner had filed income tax return for the assessment year 2005-2006 relevant for the financial year 2004-2005 in November 2005. He submits, with reference to Section 139 of the Income Tax Act and explanation given therein, that petitioner had time firstly upto October, 2005 to file his return. Even if he failed to do so, he had time upto 31st of March, 2006 as per the provisions of the Income Tax Act to file his return. The advertisement of the Indian Oil Corporation was issued in August, 2005 and papers had to be submitted within 20 days by 05th of September, 2005. That was a date much prior to the statutory last date for filing income tax return. He, accordingly, filed his papers before the 5 Corporation enclosing the income tax return of the last previous year for which he had filed his return. Before the Interview Committee, he had explained this and the Interview Committee had accepted the explanation. Thus, there was nothing wrong in his selection. With consent of parties, the writ petition is being disposed of at this stage itself. In my view, this writ petition must succeed. The facts and the conduct of the Indian Oil Corporation, as noted above, in my view, speak for themselves. There were only two persons in the fray, the petitioner and the intervener-respondent. Each time petitioner was to succeed, a new objection was raised by the IOC itself in order to defeat petitioner’s right. Ultimately the only ground on which letter of intent has been withdrawn is that petitioner had failed to file a copy of his income tax return for the financial year, 2004-2005. This is not a valid ground. As rightly submitted by Shri Agarwal, learned Senior Counsel appearing in support of the writ application, Income Tax Act gives a time-frame within which return has to be filed. The period, as specified under the Income Tax Act, had not expired. The petitioner could validly file his return within the 31st of October, 2005. The advertisement obliged him to file copy of the return by 05th of September, 2005. I am afraid; Indian Oil Corporation cannot advance the date for filing the return under Income Tax Act. There are various reasons which need not be discussed which prompted delayed filing of income tax returns. Under Section 139 of the Income Tax Act, different dates have been specified for different contingencies and ultimately for 6 the financial year 2004-2005, the return could be validly filed upto 31st of March, 2006. By the advertisement asking for returns long before that date cannot be said to be correct. When the advertisement talks of previous financial year, it can only mean previous financial year in which return has been duly filed by the petitioner. Thus seen, the petitioner had committed no wrong by filing return of the last year for which he had already filed his income tax return. That was accepted as valid by the Interview Committee. That cannot be now reviewed and recalled. The action of the Corporation, now having recalling the letter of intent already issued to the petitioner on 01.03.2006 on which petitioner had already commenced work, cannot be sustained and is set aside as such. The writ petition, thus, stands allowed. M.E.H./ (Navaniti Prasad Singh)