C.W.P. No.3927 of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No.3927 of 2009 Date of Decision.24.08.2011 Saloni Rani c/o Sudhir Sweets, Katehra Chowk, City Phagwara (Distt. Kapurthala) Punjab and another .....Petitioners Versus Indian Oil Corporation through its General Manager, Sector 19, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh and another .....Respondents Present: Mr. R.S. Bains, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Ashish Kapoor, Advocate for respondent No.1. Mr. Gurcharan Dass, Advocate for respondent No.2. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? No 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? No 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? No -.- K. KANNAN J.(ORAL) 1. The petitioner challenges the allotment of LPG Gas Agency made to the 2nd respondent in preference to the petitioners, who claimed that they were in partnership business and applied as such partners for allotment. The petitioners' candidature had been rejected although they had secured relatively higher marks on the basis of data furnished in the application form. The conditions of allotment prescribed inter alia that certain original documents or duly attested copies had to be produced and that they would be verified at the time of interview. The rejection of the petitioners' candidature was on account of the fact that both the petitioners had failed to produce C.W.P. No.3927 of 2009 -2- certain original documents and they had been entered in the check list at the time when they had appeared in the interview. It is claimed by the respondents in the reply that the petitioners had also signed the endorsement made that he originals had not been produced. The original records maintained at the interview are produced before me and I have noticed that against the 2nd petitioner, the original of the bank statement is stated to be not available and as regards the 1st petitioner three documents namely (i) medical evidence certificate; (ii) the name change of the petitioner and (iii) the title deed for the property have been not stated to be produced. In both these endorsements, the respective parties have also signed. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners contends that the documents were always with them in originals and they had also produced originals before the authorities. This is specifically refuted in the reply by the 1st respondent and as observed already, I have seen the documents containing such endorsements as referred to above. If the contention of the petitioners were to be that these endorsements were fraud intent and that they had not signed in those documents, it shall be open for the petitioners to challenge the same by means of an independent civil suit where evidence could be led on the truth or otherwise of the endorsements, as I have found, in documents maintained by the respondents at the time of interview and at the time of allotment of LPG shop. 3. Learned counsel for the respondents states that after the contract was awarded to the 2nd respondent, the outlet has also been opened on 29.04.2010 and the respondent No.2 is actually running the C.W.P. No.3927 of 2009 -3- business. Under these circumstances, I do not find an intervention as sought for by the petitioners is possible and the petition is dismissed but the petitioner will have a liberty if they are so advised to institute a suit to challenge the entries as found in the original documents and take appropriate decision on the basis of such finding. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE August 24, 2011 Pankaj*