IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.1208 of 2009 ***** Hiralal Prasad son of Late Dhanraj Shah, At & P.O.-Mauna Bazar, P.S.-Chapra, District-Saran. …. …. Petitioner Versus 1. M/s Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. having its registered office at G-9, Ali Yavar Jung Marg, Bandra (East), Mumbai through its Managing Director. 2. The General Manager, M/s Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., Bihar State Office, 5th Floor, Lok Nayak Jai Prakash Bhawan, Dak Bunglow Chowk, Patna-800 001. 4. Deputy General Manager (LPG), Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., Bihar State Office, 5th Floor, Lok Nayak Jai Prakash Bhawan, Dak Bunglow Chowk, Patna-800 001. 5. The Chief LPG Manager, Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., Bihar State Office, 5th Floor, Lok Nayak Jai Prakash Bhawan, Dak Bunglow Chowk, Patna-800 001. 6. The State Retail Sales Manager (Lubes), Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., Bihar State Office, 5th Floor, Lok Nayak Jai Prakash Bhawan, Dak Bunglow Chowk, Patna-800 001. 7. Area Manager, Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. (M.D.), Indane Area Office, Shahi Bhawan, 1st Floor, Exhibition Road, Patna-800 001. 8. Asharphi Prasad Yadav son of Late Ram Prasd, resident of village- Ramnagar, P.O. Sandha, P.S. Chapra Mufassil, District-Chapra. …. …. Respondents ----------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Y.V.Giri, Senior Advocate Mr. Ashish Giri, Advocate For the IOC : Mr. Kali Das Chatterji, Senior Advocate Mr. Amlesh Kumar Verma, Advocate For Respondent No.8 : Mr. Dinesh Kumar Singh, Senior Advocate Mr. Anurag Saurav, Advocate ----------- 5. 30.11.2009. Heard counsel for the parties. Vide letter dated 12.1.2009 contained in Annexure-29, the Deputy General Manager (LPG) communicated to the petitioner that his empanelment for selection for LPG distributorship stands cancelled for the reason that there has been suppression of vital facts in his application and giving of false and incorrect information. The suppression of those informations disentitles him from the benefit of being awarded the dealership in terms of the clause of advertisement and declaration given by the petitioner in his application/affidavit. The order, therefore, is under challenge in the present writ application. - 2 - An earlier order of similar kind was passed by the respondent Indian Oil Corporation Limited which became a subject matter of challenge in C.W.J.C. No. 1602 of 2006. The matter was heard in detail and vide order dated 10.7.2008 the impugned order contained therein came to be quashed for the primary reason that the respondent authorities had not complied with the principles of natural justice before cancellation of the selection of the petitioner. Thereafter petitioner has been given a show cause and opportunity to submit his explanation which was offered by him on 16.12.2008. The respondent authority after considering the explanations came to a considered opinion that the petitioner had deliberately suppressed the income of his wife in the application form filed by the petitioner and had given a false affidavit in this regard. Admitted position was that his wife was getting a monthly rental of Rs.5000/- per month from a nationalized bank, namely, Punjab National Bank. Another aspect which has been pointed out was that the petitioner had not given any declaration with regard to income from house property but had filed a return showing an income of about Rs.54,000/- and odd. The petitioner had also tried to suppress furnishing information with regard to his income from various companies because in the application form he had categorically declared that he had a turn over of about one crore and was dealer of more than eight leading companies but an evasive kind of reply was given with regard to the income, stating that there was no turn over as such with most of the companies, for the year in question, which was 1988-89. In other words, there was deliberate effort to mislead the - 3 - company with regard to the annual income of the family which should not exceed Rs. two lacs a year. After the impugned order contained in Annexure-29 came to be passed the petitioner has challenged it stating that there is no application of mind before passing of the order. He submits that there was no deliberate or intentional effort on the part of the petitioner to suppress the details of income about his family. His wife was not receiving any cash in hand from the Bank as rental. The said money was being adjusted against the loan account which his wife had taken from the Bank for the property in question. It is only much later and after some litigation that the Bank decided to pay rent to his wife in the range of Rs.19,000/- and odd per month as well as pay arrears of rent. The payment came to be made after the application for dealership had already been made. The payment had accrued in the year 2001 and there was no misleading statement to that extent. His submission is that having dealership of many companies by itself is not an indication of income and even if there was some income it never crossed more than Rs. 2 lacs a year to disentitle the petitioner from the benefit of the selection. The stand of the respondent Indian Oil Corporation Limited is that bonafide conduct and honesty of a candidate who had to be selected is vital to the said selection process. There is object and purpose behind fixing an income limit of Rs.2 lacs for a family. The explanation offered by the petitioner with regard to the income of his wife and other family members is by itself not acceptable because merely taking a stand that no money was coming in the hands of his wife but was being adjusted - 4 - by Bank against the loan account does not mean that it was not income of the wife. Material and evidence has come that the Bank ended up paying arrears of rent etc. to the wife of the petitioner to the tune of Rs.9,83,510/- for the period 14.4.1988 to 13.2.2002. Further petitioner in his declaration with regard to annual income has filled most of the columns as ‘NIL’ and has shown total gross income as only Rs.54,021/-. When details of transaction with regard to the dealership of other premium companies was sought for an evasive kind of information of only a few companies was given and thereafter there was a complete stone walling by the petitioner on the issue. In fact there is evidence to show that the petitioner tried to stop the Bank from giving any kind of information to the company when enquiry was being made by them with regard to the declaration made by the petitioner, during reverification of the declarations. Stand of the respondents is that if there was a deliberate omission or suppression of income, there is every reason for the respondents to disqualify him even though he was selected initially in the selection process. In this regard reliance is placed on a decision rendered in the case of B.R. Chowdhury v. Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd., (2004) 2 SCC 177. Another aspect which has emerged is that in terms of the advertisement the age of a candidate was fixed as not less than 21 years as well as not beyond 60 years. The admitted position is that the petitioner is at present way past 66 years of age and that by itself also disentitles him from being now appointed or selected as a LPG dealer in addition to the fact that there is finding of deliberate omission and suppression with regard to the income aspect of the petitioner and his family members. - 5 - A counter affidavit has also been filed on behalf of respondent no.8, who is the next selected candidate. In the counter affidavit he has given certain details of the property etc. of the petitioner and has categorically supported the respondent Corporation with regard to the background under which the impugned order came to be passed. He has indicated that the petitioner owns many properties in the town of Chapra. He is a well respected businessman having dealership of many blue chip companies and he has shown his annual gross income at only Rs.54,000/- and odd. All his submissions or explanations are being offered now is only a way to cover up his deliberate misleading statement made in the application before the company. His dishonest intent in declarations has emerged and there is nothing wrong with the impugned order having come to be passed by the company after giving him an opportunity to the petitioner. After having heard the counsels for the parties and having perused the material the Court is not convinced with the explanation which have been offered by the petitioner with regard to income of his wife and family income. It is apparent from the materials that there has not been an honest declaration on the part of the petitioner with regard to his annual gross income of his family unit and he has provided evasive and sketchy materials in support of his income even after the opportunity of hearing was given to him. He has not been able to fully satisfy the respondent authorities that there was no deliberate suppression of fact on his behalf which was a ground for withdrawal of the letter of intent or the selection made in favour of the petitioner. The reasons assigned by the - 6 - respondent Corporation contained in Annexure-29 are cogent and valid reasons and if that be so no fault can be found with the impugned order, which has come to be passed against the petitioner. The Court opines that the present situation in which the petitioner is, is his own doing and he cannot draw advantage of his own wrong now by offering explanations which are neither consistent, coherent or in accordance with the consonance of accounting followed in this country. The writ application has no merit. It is dismissed. Pawan/- (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)