CWP No. 1552 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P.No. 1552 Of 2008 Date of decision 1 .2.2008 Manoj Kumar ...Petitioner Versus Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. and others ... Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.S. MANN Present: Mr. S.P.Jain, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Dheeraj Jain, Advocate for the petitioner. M.M.KUMAR, J. This is third petition on one subject matter namely allotment of LPG distributorship at Ballabhgarh. The petitioner has sought direction to respondent nos. 1 and 2 to conduct a fresh enquiry against respondent no.3 who is awarded LPG Distributorship. It is admitted position that initially distributorship was given to one Shri Virender Chaudhary who was in the panel of selected candidates at serial No.2. His allotment was set aside at the instance of Sewa Ram, respondent no.3 when he filed CWP No.14143 of 2006 decided on 15.11.2007. Thereafter Virinder Chaudhary again filed Review Application bearing no.14 of 2008 which was dismissed on 18.1.2008. In the review application the allegations made by him were idential which have been levelled against Sewa Ram in para 11 of the instant petition. The allegations read as under: “ 1. Providing Forged documents. Sewa Ram produced a forged agreement with Shri Balkishan CWP No. 1552 of 2008 2 about the availability of Show room Shop. Shri Balkishan was not the owner of the said show room shop at the time of agreement. 2. Providing wrong information. Sewa Ram has written in his application that he had Rs.1,50,000/- in his SBI Bank A/c., but there was no fund exists in this a/c. He gave this wrong information to get more marks. 3.Concealling annual income. Sewa Ram's annual income was more than 2,00,000 lacs in the year financial year 2000-2001. He showed Rs.50,000 income from agriculture land of 48 kanals. But actually he was owner of more than 150 kanal agriculture land from which he earned more than Rs.2,50,000. He also earned Rs.63,835 from business and his dependent son also owner of 32 kanal agriculture land . Income from this land must be include and mentioned in annual income affidavit, but Sewa Ram concealed it.” It is pertinent to mention that petitioner was neither in the parameter of panel as his name figured at serial no.4. It is admitted position as per guidelines given in para 9 of the petition that if the name of the candidate does not figure upto 3rd number then the distributorship is to be re-advertised. In other words, the merit panel upto serial no.3 is prepared. The name of the petitioner admittedly figure at serial no.4 and therefore in no way he was within the merit panel. It is further appropriate to mention CWP No. 1552 of 2008 3 that Shri Virender Chaudhary whose distributorship has been set aside in CWP No.14143 of 2006 decided on 15.11.2007 himself filed a writ petition bearing CWP no. 1124 of 2008 and the same was dismissed by this Court on 24.1.2008. After hearing learned senior counsel we are of the considered view that this petition lacks merit because the petitioner has categorically admitted that he has been keeping close watch on the proceedings initiated by CWP No.14143 of 2006 decided on 15.11.2007, Review Application No.14 of 2008 dismissed on 18.1.2008 and CWP No.1124 of 2008 decided on 24.1.2008. It follows that he had detailed knowledge of all the proceedings but he preferred to keep quite. It remains undisputed that the petitioner did not prefer to file any writ petition despite the fact that cause of action had arisen to him in the year 2004 itself. The matter has been decided at the instance of respondent no.3 who filed CWP No.14143 of 2006 which has been allowed on 15.11.2007 quashing the allotment of LPG distributorship to Shri Virinder Chaudhary. Even the Review Application filed by him being RA No.14 of 2008 has been dismissed on 18.1.2008 in which similar allegations were made. Even the writ petition filed by ShriVirinder Chaudhary being CWP No.1124 of 2008 stands dismissed on 24.1.2008 in which similar allegations have been levelled. Now the petitioner has levelled allegations almost identical in nature against respondent no.3 and have sought direction to the official respondents to investigation those allegations. The allegations levelled against respondent no.3 is that he has filed the agreement with one Bal Krishan about the availability of show room because Bal Krishan was not the owner of show room at the time of agreement. The allegation is wholly vague. It fails to CWP No. 1552 of 2008 4 disclose any specific date. Moreover, the allegation was considered or deemed to have been considered by this Court in CWP No.1124 of 2008 dismissed on 24.1.2008 and RA No.14 of 2008 dismissed on 18.1.2008. Likewise, another allegation has been made that respondent no.3 Sewa Ram has claimed in his application that he had Rs.1,50,000/- in S.B.I. account and no funds were available which issue was also raised in the writ petition as well as in the review application and is deemed to have been decided against the petitioner. Similar allegation concerning concealing of annual income has been levelled which remained unsubstantiated as no income tax return has been brought on record. This allegation was also levelled in the review application as well as in the Civil Writ Petition and the same is deemed to have been adjudicated and rejected. In view of the above, we find no merit in the petition and the same is dismissed. (M.M.Kumar) Judge (T.P.S.Mann) 1 .2.2008 Judge okg