HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI W.P.No.1771 of 2004 03-06-2010 Between: K.Venkat Reddy ………Petitioner And M/s. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd., BPCK, SD Road, Secunderabad and three others. ………Respondents HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI W.P.No.1771 of 2004 ORDER: An unsuccessful applicant for award of L.P.G. Distributorship located at Kallur village of Kurnool District, has filed this writ petition assailing the appointment of respondent No.4. 2. The 1st respondent-Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited (for brevity ‘the Corporation’) issued a public notification in the newspapers dated 15-08-2000 (in continuation of a notification issued on 31-12-1997) to appoint L.P.G. distributors, among other places, for Kallur village of Kurnool District, in response to which, the petitioner, respondent No.4 and others submitted applications. Interview was conducted on 03-01-2001 and the Selection Board recommended a panel, in which, respondent No.4 was placed at serial No.1 and two others (not parties to this writ petition) were placed at serial No.2 and 3. The petitioner was not recommended, apparently, as he was not found to be more suitable than respondent No.4 and two others. In pursuance of the recommendation, respondent No.4 was appointed and the distributorship was duly commissioned on 09-05-2001. 3. The petitioner remained silent since 2001 and filed this writ petition in 2004. The petitioner does not dispute the eligibility of the 4th respondent, nor he claims to possess qualifications superior to those of the 4th respondent. He, however, questions the award on the sole ground that the 4th respondent suppressed the fact of his involvement in a criminal case which, according to him, was a threshold disqualification, which he was required to state in column 20 of the application and he failed to do so. On this premise, the petitioner contends threshold disqualification of the 4th respondent. The petitioner relies on clause 11 of what is called “Eligibility Criteria for Award of Dealerships/Distributors under “Open Category” (‘Eligibility Criteria’ for brevity) (Clause 2.9.9 of the Manual of Selection of Dealers/Distributors), and contends that the 4th respondent should have been screened and disqualified in terms thereof. 4. According to him, at the relevant point of time, the 4th respondent was facing a criminal case for an offence under Section 18 of N.D.P.S. Act in the Court of the Metropolitan Sessions Judge at Hyderabad, vide charge sheet No.43 of 2000. The charge sheet was filed on 28-07-2000. Relying on the same, it is contended that the application of the respondent No.4 could not have been considered as by then a charge sheet was already on the record of the Criminal Court. 5. Per contra, learned counsel Sri O.Mahonar Reddy, on behalf of respondent Nos.1 and 2, contends that the aforesaid clause 11 does not debar making an application nor it can be read as a disqualification for the award. According to him, it applies only to the cases where candidates have been convicted or those against whom charges have been framed by the Court would alone be ineligible and the said clause does not apply to the candidates against whom a mere charge sheet is pending. He, however, admits that column 20 of the Application Form requires that a candidate should indicate whether any proceedings are pending in the Court of Law. He, further, contends that the pendency of charge sheet against the 4th respondent was not within the knowledge of respondents 1 and 2, however, the same being not a disqualification, the selection is not vitiated. 6. Sri P.A.V. Padmanabham, learned counsel for the 4th respondent, submits that the 4th respondent was rightly appointed as he is fully qualified compared to the petitioner. He seeks to sustain the appointment on the same contentions as those advanced on behalf of the respondents 1 and 2. He further contends that in any event, the petitioner, who is guilty of serious latches is not entitled for any indulgence of this Court. 7. In the context of the aforesaid contentions, the limited controversy for determination is whether mere pendency of charge sheet is sufficient to disqualify the petitioner for appointment as a dealer; and whether the non-disclosure of the pendency of criminal case, which is required to be indicated in column 20 of the application, vitiates the appointment. Clause 11 of the Eligibility Criteria reads as follows: “Clause 11. Conviction:- Candidates convicted for any criminal offence involving moral turpitude and/or economic offence (other than Freedom struggle) and those against whom charges have been framed by the Court (other than Freedom struggle) would not be eligible for dealership/distributorship and if such a person is allotted the dealership/distributorship by suppression of information, it will be cancelled.” 8. The language of the above provision does not admit any ambiguity. It provides for disqualifying (1) a candidate who is already convicted for an offence involving moral turpitude in a criminal case or economic offences; and (2) a candidate although not convicted, but against whom charge has been framed by the Court in such criminal proceedings. 9. As noted above, there was no conviction nor any charges framed against the petitioner at the relevant point of time. Admittedly, charge sheet alone was pending and charges were yet to be framed. Filing of a charge sheet and framing of charges are two different legal procedures which arise at different stages undertaken by two different functionaries in the criminal justice delivery system. A charge sheet is a police report submitted by the police after the investigation into the allegations is completed which would be forwarded to a Magistrate upon which charges would be framed by the Magistrate against the accused. While the filing of charge sheet is a function of the police (Investigating Agency), framing of charges is the judicial function of a Magistrate. Charge/charges would have to be framed by the Magistrate on a judicious consideration of the police report and the material connected therewith and on the formation of opinion that there is a ground for presuming that accused has committed the offence charged with the offence alleged, a charge to be framed against the accused. In the event the Magistrate considers that the charge is groundless, the accused would have to be discharged. This is the scheme of the criminal procedure code. Therefore, mere filing/pendency of the charge sheet, which is a function of the police, cannot be equated to the function of framing the charge or charges. Therefore, it cannot be said that the 4th respondent suffered disqualification in terms of clause 11 of the criteria. 10. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner contends that since column 20 of the application required disclosure as to whether any criminal case was pending and since the 4th respondent did not disclose the same, in the said event also, he should be considered as disqualified. It may be noted that column 20 is meant for eliciting information, but does not per se impose any disqualification. It is not the case of the petitioner that non-disclosure is a material defect which would have influenced the ultimate decision. 11. It is, however, brought to the notice of this Court that the criminal case in Sessions Case No.7 of 2001 which is sought to be pressed against the 4th respondent was dismissed and the 4th respondent was acquitted by judgment dated 26-09-2002, which fact was also to be taken into consideration by the respondents 1 and 2 to continue the dealership already granted in favour of the 4th respondent. 12. On the aforesaid analysis and also on the apparent fact that the dealership was commissioned as long back as on 09-05-2001, the writ petition is devoid of merits and the same is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________ 3rd June 2010 KVR