Case: Virender Chaudhary Vs. Bharat Petroleum Corporation &amp; Others

2. Respondent No.1 is a company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, 1956. It is a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. Its function, inter alia, is allotment of grant of LPG distributorship.3. An advertisement was issued by the first respondent inviting applications for grant of LPG distributorship for different areas including the one for Ballabhgarh district, in terms whereof a person convicted for commission of any offence involving moral turpitude/economic offence and those against whom charges had been framed by the court were ineligible therefore. In the said advertisement dated 18.7.1998 published in a daily newspaper `The Tribune and `Dainik Tribune it was statedEligibility : The applicant should be :XXX XXX XXX5. Candidates convicted for any criminal offence involving moral turpitude/economic offences and those against whom charge has been framed by the Court (other than Freedom Struggle) are not eligible tono distributorship was granted pursuant to the above advertisement. Later, advertisements were published in the year 002 for the purpose of grant of LPG dealership in Ballabhgarh district. The advertisement dated 23.3.2002, published in `Navbharat Times reads thusCandidates convicted for any criminal offence involving moral turpitude/economic offences and those against whom charge has been framed by the Court (other than Freedom Struggle) are not eligible to6 and 9 of the advertisement published in `The Tribune and `Dainik Tribune on 23.3.2002 read as underCandidates convicted for any criminal offence involving moral turpitude/economic offences (other than Freedom Struggle), are not eligible to apply.XXX XXX XXX9. The candidate selected for dealership shall be a full time working dealer. Further details of the eligibility criteria and conditions as mentioned in the application form shall apply.Several criteria were laid down in the application form, paragraph 20 whereof reads as underyou ever been convicted for any criminal offence involving moral turpitude and/or economic offence (other than freedom struggle)? If so, please give details thereof, if not please attach affidavit as per appendix `A.In the manual issued by the respondent No.1, it was statedConviction: (i) Candidates convicted for any criminal offence involving moral turpitude and/or economic offence (other than freedom struggle) would not be eligible for dealership/ distributorship and if such a person is allotted the dealership/distributorship by suppression of information, it will be cancelled.Indisputably, Respondent No.5 was proceeded against in a criminal case for alleged commission of offences under Sections 452, 323, 506 and 34 IPC in the year 1999. Another First Information Report was lodged against him on or about 9.7.2001 under Sections 147, 148, 353, 186, 341 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code.7. Both the appellants as also the respondent No.1 applied in response to the advertisement. In his application the 5th respondent did not mention that he had been proceeded against in a criminal case and charges were framed against him. Interviews were held for the candidates on or about 25/26.11.2003. Respondent No.5 was found to be the most suitable candidate by the Selection Committee. The name of appellant also figured in the select list. Empanelment of the 5th respondent was, however, cancelled in view of his involvement in the criminal case. A field investigation was furthermore carried out in respect of the appellant.8. Fifth respondent filed a writ petition questioning the decision of the first respondent herein in not awarding the dealership in his favour. A letter of intent was issued in favour of the appellant in May 2004 whereafter he started his business. In his writ petition, however, the 5th respondent did not make any prayer for setting aside the allotment made in favour of the appellant. On that ground, the writ petition was adjourned sine die by an order dated 23.11.2004. Only on 16.3.2006, an application for amending the writ petition was filed. However, the said writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file a fresh writ petition on the same cause of action.9. Thereafter, the second writ petition was filed in October 2006 which has been allowed by the High Court by reason of the impugned judgment dated 15.11.2007.

Reasoning:
The 5th respondent did not acquire an indefeasible right. He was selected by the Oil Selection Board. The said selection was subsequently cancelled and a letter of intent was issued in favour of the appellant in May 2004. It was not questioned immediately after issuance of the letter of intent in favour of appellant in May 2004. In his writ application, the 5th respondent did not question the grant of dealership in favour of the appellant. He was afforded an opportunity to amend the writ petition. He filed such an application only after 16 months. However, the writ petition itself was withdrawn and only in October 2006, the present writ application was filed. From the facts as noticed hereinbefore, there can, therefore, be no doubt that from May 2004 to October 2006, the respondent did not take any step to challenge insurance of the letter of intent granting dealership in favour ofthe fact that starting of a business in LPG dealership requires a huge investment and infrastructure therefore is required to be provided and a large number of employees are to be appointed therefore, we are of the opinion that the High Court committed a serious error in not taking these factors into consideration in proper perspective. The impugned judgment, therefore, cannot be sustained and is set aside accordingly.