IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.142 of 2010 ANIL KUMAR SINGH, SON OF SRI DASHRATH SINGH R/O VILLAGE- DHAURI GOPAL, P.O MADARPUR, P.S MASHRAKH, DISTRICT- SARAN AT CHAPRA. . . . PETITIONER-APPELLANT. Versus 1. THE INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD. THROUGH THE GENERAL MANAGER, HEAD OFFICE AT G-9, ALI YAVAR JUNG MARG, BANDRA (EAST), MUMBAI- 400051. 2. THE GENERAL MANAGER, THE INDIAN OIL CORPORATION, HEAD OFFICE AT G-9, ALI YAVAR JUNG MARG, BANDRA (EAST), MUMBAI- 400051. 3. THE GENERAL MANAGER. THE BIHAR STATE OFFICE, INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD. 5th FLOOR, LOK NAYAK JAI PRAKASH BHAWAN, DAK BUNGALOW CHOWK, PATNA 4. THE SENIOR AREA MANAGER, INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD. (MARKETING DIVISION), EASTERN REGION, INDANE AREA OFFICE, 1st FLOOR, SHAHI BHAWAN, EXHIBITION ROAD, PATNA. 5. THE DEALERS SELECTION BOARD, INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD., EASTERN REGION, INDANE AREA OFFICE, 1st FLOOR, SHAHI BHAWAN, EXHIBITION ROAD, PATNA. 6. SRI RAJU KUMAR SINGH, SON OF SRI DINA NATH SINGH 7. SRI AJAY KUMAR SINGH, SON OF NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANT. 8. SRI SANJAY KUMAR SINGH, SON OF NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANT, RESPONDENT NOS. 6 TO 8 THROUGH THE SENIOR AREA MANAGER, INDIAN OIL CORPORTION LTD., (MARKETING DIVISION), EASTERN REGION, INDANE AREA OFFICE, 1st FLOOR, SHAHI BHAWAN, EXHIBITION ROAD, PATNA. . . . . . RESPONDENTS-RESPONDENTS. For the Appellant : Mr. S.B.K. Mangalam, Adv. For the Respondents : Mr. Anail Kumar Jha, Sr. Adv. ----------- 7/ 25.01.2011 The instant appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent of the High Court of Judicature at Patna has been filed against the order dated 03.12.2009 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 2787 of 2009, whereby the writ application has been dismissed on merit in absence of learned counsel of the petitioner. The appellant filed aforesaid C.W.J.C. No. 2787 of 2009 for quashing the letter dated 04.02.2009, issued under the signature 2 of Senior Area Manager, I.O.C. Ltd. (Respondent no.4 in writ application), whereby it was communicated that candidature of writ petitioner for award of L.P.G. Distributor at Masrakh stands cancelled, as in course of investigation it was found that the Land Possession Certificate (LPC) and the rent receipts submitted by him were found to be forged. The writ petitioner further prayed for quashing of the selection and merit list prepared by the respondent authorities dated 04.02.2009, for which interview was held on 05.12.2008, wherein respondent nos. 6, 7 and 8 have been placed at serial nos. 1, 2 and 3. The case of the appellant in short is that pursuant to advertisement for selection of distributorship of L.P.G. for a location in Masrakh in the district of Saran under open category, he submitted his application with all relevant documents. The appellant enclosed registered lease deed executed by Sri Upendra Kumar Singh and one Shri Ashok Kumar Singh in his favour. The appellant appeared in interview before the selection committee on 05.12.2008. No merit list was published on 05.12.2008, instead the respondent no.4 directed the appellant to appear in his office with title and possession certificate of the land, since a complaint was received and the complainant had claimed title and possession over the land in question. The appellant appeared and produced all relevant documents in support of title and peaceful possession of the lessor. The appellant filed another representation stating that copy of the complaint and documents attached there with were not made available to him. The grievance of the appellant is that over looking 3 all grounds and documents, the respondent no.4 illegally cancelled his candidature for award of distributorship of L.P.G. on the ground of furnishing incorrect information on capability to provide infrastructure. The appellant, as such filed the instant C.W.J.C. No. 2787 of 2009 against cancellation of his candidature. This Court by order dated 03.03.2009 gave liberty to the writ petitioner to file a complaint in terms of advertisement with regard to his being declared as ineligible, which would be decided by the Officer in the rank of General Manager, who would pass appropriate order within six weeks. It was further directed that the Indian Oil Corporation would file counter affidavit bringing the order on record that is passed by General Manager of I.O.C. The appellant thereafter filed his representation before General Manager, Bihar State Office of I.O.C. The General Manager did not agree with the grounds mentioned in the presentation. He observed that his candidature for distributorship has rightly been cancelled for producing incorrect documents regarding infrastructure. The General Manager in his report dated 25.06.2009 observed that the Circle Officer, Masrakh vide letter dated 28.01.2009 has clarified that LPC no. 897 dated 16.12.2008 are forged and rent receipts are not issued from its office. It was further noted that Circle Officer, Masrakh has clarified that letter no. 90 dated 22.04.2008 addressed to District Magistrate, Saran stated that one Bindeshwari Prasad and Pramod Tiwari are the rightful owners of the land. In another word, the lessors of the appellant are not the rightful owner of the land, which the farmer had shown in respect to infrastructure capability. 4 The grievance of the appellant is that the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ application in his absence without considering the materials on record. He submits that mutation order of the land in question would show that the lessor of the appellant was the rightful owner of the land in question. The grievance of the appellant is that over looking the aforesaid aspects, the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ application without even adjourning the same for a day, as it had come for hearing for the first time after filing of the counter affidavit. We find that the learned Single Judge in his order has observed that after thorough investigation and enquiry, the General Manager, I.O.C. found that the information furnished by the petitioner was false and incorrect. For sake of convenience, the relevant extracts of enquiry made by the General Manager is quoted herein below: “In case, the information produced by the applicant is false and incorrect, it is sufficient to cancel candidature of the applicant as per terms and conditions of the advertisement. C.O., Masarakh vide their letter Ref 6 Mu dated 28.01.2009 have clarified that LPC No. 896, 897 dt. 16.12.2008 are forged and rent receipts are not issued from their office. Circle Officer, Masarakh has further clarified that letter no. 90 dated 22.04.2008 addressed to D.M., Saran is correct and Bindeshwari Prasad and Pramod Tiwari are rightful owners of the land”. The issue whether the lessor of the appellant was having 5 title and possession over the land or whether the letter issued by Circle Officer, Masrakh is correct, as claimed by the appellant, is prima facie in dispute in view of letters of Circle Officer, Masrakh. Thus, we do not find any illegality in the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge, as such this appeal is dismissed. Uday/ (S.K. Katriar, J.) (S. P. Singh, J.)