IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.9884 of 2010 Arvind Kumar S/O Sri Ram Naresh Prasad, R/O Vill.- Lakhanpur Tal, P.S. Desri, Distt.- Vaishali at Hajipur Versus 1. The Union Of India, Through the Secretary, Petroleum Department, govt. Of India, New Delhi 2. The Chairman, Selection Committee, Indian Oil Corporation Limited, Block-A, Mauryalok Complex (3rd Floor), Dak Bunglow Road, Patna-1 3. Managing Director, Marketing Division, Patna Divisional Office, Block-A Mauryalok Complex (3rd Floor), Dak Bunglow Road, Patna-1 4. Senior Divisional Retail Sales Manager, Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., Patna Divisional Office, Block-A, Mauryalok Complex (3rd Floor), Patna-01 For the petitioner : Mr. Om Prakash Om, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Kali Das Chatterji, Sr. Advocate. Mr. Amlesh Kumar Verma, Advocate. ----------- 5. 02.12.2010 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for respondents Indian Oil Corporation Limited and its authorities. 2. This writ petition has been filed for directing the respondents to issue letter of intent to the petitioner for Kishan Seva Kendra Operatorship of M/s Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. at Gajipur Chandpura Road, Desri, District-Vaishali as the petitioner had fulfilled all the procedures and requirements whereafter he had been selected at the first position in the selection list and for other ancillary reliefs. 3. It is quite apparent that advertisement for the said purpose was issued on 11.08.2007 in the daily ‘Hindustan’ newspaper (Annexure-1) whereafter several - 2 - applications were filed by the willing candidates out of whom the petitioner’s application dated 17.09.2007 (Annexure-A to the counter affidavit) was filed on 18.09.2007 on receipt(Annexure-2). The grievance of the petitioner is that although he was selected as the first candidate, but in spite of that letter of intent is not communicated to him on frivolous consideration. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submits that after selection field investigations were made for verification of statements made in the applications of all the candidates. Similar verification was made in case of the petitioner also and it was found that on the date of petitioner’s application only Rs. 470.64 was standing in his account, although in his application, petitioner had claimed that he had above Rs. 7 lacs and odd in his account. Hence, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the marks (12) given to the petitioner on the basis of statement made in the application regarding the amount of Rs. 7 lacs and odd standing in petitioner’s account was deducted and accordingly petitioner was not found eligible for the letter of intent for the aforesaid purpose. 5. From the arguments of the parties as well as from the materials on record, it is quite apparent that the parties are not in dispute regarding the date of advertisement as well as the date of filing application before the authority concerned. Hence, if the petitioner was contesting the claim of the - 3 - respondents that on the date of application i.e. 17/18.09.2007 only Rs. 470.64 was standing in the name of the petitioner, he should have produced the statement of bank for the said date, but it transpires that the petitioner had filed statement of his Saving Bank Account of the State Bank of India (Annexure-A series at page 51 of the counter affidavit), which shows that up till 23.08.2007 the deposit in the petitioner’s said account was Rs. 7,50,670.64 and the certificate to that effect was also granted by the Bank on 23.08.2007 (Annexure-A series at page 50) but that is not sufficient for the purpose as the petitioner should have produced the statement of account as well as certificate of the State Bank of India showing that on the date of application i.e. 17/18.09.2007 Rs. 7 lacs and odd were present in his account, but no such document has been produced to show how much amount existd in the petitioner’s account. In the said circumstances, the findings of the authorities after verification that only Rs. 470.64 was standing in the name of the petitioner cannot be disbelieved or discarded. 6. In the said circumstances, this court does not find any merit in this writ petition, which is accordingly, dismissed. Sujit (S.N. Hussain, J.)