# Dinesh Kumar Chaudhary v. Union Of India & Ors - **Citation:** (2016) 4 ILRA 750 - **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad - **Decided:** 2016-04-28 - **Bench:** Amreshwar Pratap Sahi, Attau Rahman Masoodi - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/dinesh-kumar-chaudhary-v-union-of-india-ors-43684 - **Pages:** 5 ## Headnote A.S.G., Shri Manish Jauhari Held - Paragraph 1: Background and Challenge The petitioner challenged orders dated March 23, 2016, and July 15, 2015, issued by the respondent Oil Corporation. These orders canceled the petitioner's selection for a retail outlet dealership in Siddharth Nagar, U.P. The petitioner argued that he provided genuine documents and did not willfully misrepresent facts. Paragraph 2: The Grounds for Cancellation Following a field verification, the Corporation canceled the petitioner's top-ranked (Serial No. 1) empanelment. The reason was a discrepancy in the petitioner's bank account status, which the Corporation labeled as a "misrepresentation" intended to unfairly boost his merit score. Paragraph 3: Procedural History and Petitioner's Argument 4 All. Dinesh Kumar Chaudhary Vs Union Of India & Ors. 751 The petitioner previously obtained a court direction for the Corporation to reconsider his representation. His counsel argued that the bank statement provided was dated November 16, 2011, which was accurate for that specific day. He contended that because the document itself was dated, it could not be considered a "misrepresentation" of his balance on the later application date (November 22, 2011). Paragraph 4: Arguments on Concealment The petitioner further argued that even if the balance at the time of the application differed from the earlier statement, it did not constitute "concealment" or "misrepresentation" sufficient for disqualification, especially since he still met the minimum financial requirements set out in the brochure. Paragraph 5: Respondent Corporation's Defense The Corporation argued that the application was filed on November 22, 2011, but the financial figures provided did not reflect the balance on that date or the advertisement date (October 26, 2011). They maintained that this deviation resulted in an incorrect merit ranking, and the brochure allowed for cancellation based on such discrepancies found during field verification. Paragraph 6: Findings on Factual Discrepancy The Court noted an undisputed fact: the petitioner claimed a balance of Rs. 18,12,417 (as of Nov 16), but his actual balance on the application date (Nov 22) was only Rs. 6,12,417.50. The Court found that the petitioner failed to disclose the account status as it existed on the relevant dates required for evaluation. Paragraph 7: Conclusion on Misrepresentation The Court ruled that while there might not have been a specific "intent to deceit," providing incorrect information that leads to a wrong merit ranking constitutes misrepresentation in a legal sense. Because the marks were awarded based on liquid assets that did not exist on the application date, the entire assessment process was compromised. Paragraph 8 & 9: Final Decision The Court upheld the Corporation's decision, stating that the incorrect information led to an erroneous selection. Finding no merit in the petitioner's arguments, the Court dismissed the writ petition. Petition Dismissed. (Delivered By Hon'ble Amreshwar Pratap Sahi, J. & Hon'ble Attau Rahman Masoodi, J.) ## Text 750 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES 24. Considering the said prayer, it is provided that the petitioner shall vacate the shop in question within a period of six months from today i.e. on or before 30.10.2016 and shall also hand over the peaceful possession thereof to the respondent no.3. He shall continue to pay the rent to the respondent no.3 and shall also pay the amount in terms of the judgment and order passed by the prescribed authority. The respondent No.3 will also pay the amount indicated by the Prescribed Authority to the petitioner. 25. It is further provided that any violation or disobedience of this order by the petitioner will render him liable for contempt of this Court. 26. There will be no order as to costs. ---------- ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: LUCKNOW 28.04.2016 BEFORE THE HON'BLE AMRESHWAR PRATAP SAHI, J. THE HON'BLE ATTAU RAHMAN MASOODI, J. Misc. Bench No.- 9029 Of 2016 Dinesh Kumar Chaudhary ...Petitioner Versus Union Of India & Ors. ...Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Shri Chandra Bhushan Pandey, Shri Abhinav Bhattacharya, Ms Preeti Pandey Counsel for the Respondents: A.S.G., Shri Manish Jauhari Held - Paragraph 1: Background and Challenge The petitioner challenged orders dated March 23, 2016, and July 15, 2015, issued by the respondent Oil Corporation. These orders canceled the petitioner's selection for a retail outlet dealership in Siddharth Nagar, U.P. The petitioner argued that he provided genuine documents and did not willfully misrepresent facts. Paragraph 2: The Grounds for Cancellation Following a field verification, the Corporation canceled the petitioner's top-ranked (Serial No. 1) empanelment. The reason was a discrepancy in the petitioner's bank account status, which the Corporation labeled as a "misrepresentation" intended to unfairly boost his merit score. Paragraph 3: Procedural History and Petitioner's Argument 4 All. Dinesh Kumar Chaudhary Vs Union Of India & Ors. 751 The petitioner previously obtained a court direction for the Corporation to reconsider his representation. His counsel argued that the bank statement provided was dated November 16, 2011, which was accurate for that specific day. He contended that because the document itself was dated, it could not be considered a "misrepresentation" of his balance on the later application date (November 22, 2011). Paragraph 4: Arguments on Concealment The petitioner further argued that even if the balance at the time of the application differed from the earlier statement, it did not constitute "concealment" or "misrepresentation" sufficient for disqualification, especially since he still met the minimum financial requirements set out in the brochure. Paragraph 5: Respondent Corporation's Defense The Corporation argued that the application was filed on November 22, 2011, but the financial figures provided did not reflect the balance on that date or the advertisement date (October 26, 2011). They maintained that this deviation resulted in an incorrect merit ranking, and the brochure allowed for cancellation based on such discrepancies found during field verification. Paragraph 6: Findings on Factual Discrepancy The Court noted an undisputed fact: the petitioner claimed a balance of Rs. 18,12,417 (as of Nov 16), but his actual balance on the application date (Nov 22) was only Rs. 6,12,417.50. The Court found that the petitioner failed to disclose the account status as it existed on the relevant dates required for evaluation. Paragraph 7: Conclusion on Misrepresentation The Court ruled that while there might not have been a specific "intent to deceit," providing incorrect information that leads to a wrong merit ranking constitutes misrepresentation in a legal sense. Because the marks were awarded based on liquid assets that did not exist on the application date, the entire assessment process was compromised. Paragraph 8 & 9: Final Decision The Court upheld the Corporation's decision, stating that the incorrect information led to an erroneous selection. Finding no merit in the petitioner's arguments, the Court dismissed the writ petition. Petition Dismissed. (Delivered By Hon'ble Amreshwar Pratap Sahi, J. & Hon'ble Attau Rahman Masoodi, J.) 1. Heard Sri C.B. Pandey learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Manish Jauhari for respondents no. 2 to 7 and Sri K.K. Pandey for the first respondent. 2. The petitioner has come up questioning the correctness of the order dated 23.3.2016 as well as the order dated 15.7.2015 passed by the respondent Oil Corporation contending that the same proceeds on a completely erroneous assumption of the definition of the word 'mis- 752 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES representation' in as much as the petitioner had placed all correct facts and he had not misrepresented any fact nor has he placed any fake document to get any benefit for the purpose of award of retail outlet dealership for petroleum produc8969ts at a particular site in district Siddharth Nagar, U.P. 3. The matter appears to have been examined by the respondent-Corporation on field verification and then the order dated 15.7.2015 was communicated to the petitioner cancelling the select empanelment where the petitioner had been placed at serial no. 1 on the ground that the petitioner had disclosed an incorrect status of his Bank account, which deviation was treated as a mis-representation, in order to enhance the merit of the petitioner. The petitioner aggrieved by such action had approached this Court and a writ petition was filed in which a direction was issued on 29th October 2015 calling upon the respondent-Corporation to consider the representation of the petitioner and pass a reasoned order. On such representation the impugned order dated 23.3.2016 has been passed. 4. Sri Pandey has vehemently urged that the Bank account status of the petitioner was perfectly in order indicating liquid assets possessed by the petitioner and as a matter of fact even the amount which was found on verification by the respondents and disclosed by the petitioner on the date of application was also meeting the requirements under the brochure, as such the respondent-Corporation ought to have re-evaluated the status of the candidature of the petitioner and should not have rejected the same on the alleged ground of mis-representation. He contends that the documents which were filed were all genuine and the status of the bank account which existed on 16.11.2011 was appended along with the application form which was filed on 22.11.2011. He submits that the status of the account was not disclosed as on 22.11.2011 and, therefore, it did not amount to any mis-representation because the document was itself of 16.11.2011. He, therefore, contends that the claim of the respondents about any mis-representation of the status of the account of the petitioner is ill-founded and against the record. He also contends that even logically if the account status was disclosed as that on 16.11.2011, there was no occasion to construe that the petitioner had mis-represented his status of account on 22.11.2011 as the petitioner had not indicated the balance as on 22.11.2011. 5. He submits that even assuming for the sake of arguments that the correct status of account had not been disclosed as on the date of the application form, the same would not amount to concealment or mis-representation so as to disqualify the petitioner on the strength of such disclosure. The contention, therefore, is that the impugned order deserves to be quashed and the writ petition deserves to be allowed. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent contends that the disclosure as made by the petitioner, on field verification was not found to be correct in accordance with the norms prescribed, namely, that the date of the advertisement was 26.10.2011. The application was filed admittedly by the petitioner on 22.11.2011. The status of the account as reflected in the application was not in conformity with either of these two dates. Consequently the figure reflected as on 16.11.2011 was a wrong figure which could not be taken into consideration. It was a deviation 4 All. Dinesh Kumar Chaudhary Vs Union Of India & Ors. 753 which had resulted in incorrect empanelment of the petitioner. He submits that this incorrect information, even if allowed the petitioner to be interviewed, was subject to field verification as per the brochure that has been observed by Oil Corporation while rejecting the application and also canceling the candidature of the petitioner. He, therefore, submits that the impugned orders have been passed on a total correct assessment of the provisions applicable as also the status of the account as disclosed by the petitioner. 7. We have considered the submissions raised and we find on record that this is an admitted position that the petitioner had not disclosed the status of the account existing either as on the date of the advertisement or on the date of the application form. He had submitted the status of the account as existed on 16.11.2011 whereas on verification it was found that the amount that existed in the account as reflected by the petitioner was far less as on 22.11.2011. The amount reflected by the petitioner was Rs. 18,12,417/- as per the Bank statement account on 16.11.2011. The status of the Bank account of the petitioner on 22.11.2011 was admittedly Rs. 6,12,417.50 paise. This factual position could not be disputed by the petitioner but the argument is that this did not amount to misrepresentation. 8. In our considered opinion the information tendered by the petitioner was an incorrect information as on the date of application and on the date of advertisement. The assessment and evaluation, therefore, proceeded on such incorrect information which led to the empanelment of the petitioner at serial no. 1. 9. The information about the status of the account may not have been reflected on account of any intention to deceit but the fact remains that the incorrect information resulted in a wrong empanelment on the strength of the marks that was awarded on the basis of the liquidity reflected by the petitioner which obviously was not of the correct date. Incorrect information about the status of the account on the relevant date was a fact that was a deviation and did not represent the desired information which resulted in an inference of mis-representation and howsoever bonafide the information remains but the effect thereof was mis-representation and disentitles the petitioner of being reconsidered for the purposes of evaluation of his merits. The fluctuation of availability of liquid money in a current account is obvious. The nature of the account would not govern the assessment but it is the availability of the fund in the account on the desired particular date, as discussed above, which has to be taken into consideration while drawing the comparative merit and awarding marks to the candidates. The entire process of assessment would therefore be jeopardized if such fluctuation is permitted. 10. Consequently, we are of the opinion that this incorrect information did result in an erroneous consideration and selection of the petitioner and his placement at serial no. 1. The conclusion drawn by the respondents while passing the order is correct. We do not find any merit in the writ petition. 11.Writ petition is accordingly rejected. ---------- 754 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 25.04.2016 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA, J. Writ C No.- 16541 Of 2016 Sub Divisional Officer, Electricity Division & Ors. ...Petitioners Versus Madan Singh & Ors. ...Respondents Counsel for the Petitioners: Nripendra Mishra Background of the case This case arises from a writ petition filed by Paschimanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited challenging the award of Rs. 5,78,000/- passed on 1.3.2016 by the Permanent Lok Adalat (PLA). The award pertained to compensation for the death of Danveer Singh (aged 18) and injuries to his brother Shiv Shanker Singh, who were electrocuted after they came into contact with a snapped 11 KVA live electric line lying in a field (Paras 2-4). Findings of the Permanent Lok Adalat The PLA held that it had jurisdiction under the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, since electricity distribution is a public utility service (Para 5). This finding was not challenged before the High Court. Based on the administrative inquiry report, case diary, panchayatnama, and post-mortem report, the PLA concluded that the death was caused due to electrocution resulting from the negligence of the electricity department (Paras 6-7). Though the petition questioned this finding, the petitioners did not press the argument during hearing. With respect to compensation, the PLA assumed a notional income of Rs. 6,000 per month, considering the deceased had passed Class XII and was pursuing ITI. After deducting 50% for personal expenses, and applying a multiplier of 16, the PLA awarded a total of Rs. 5,76,000/-, plus Rs. 2,000/- towards funeral expenses, totalling Rs. 5,78,000/- (Paras 8-11). Hon'ble High Court's Analysis The High Court reiterated the principle of restitutio in integrum, stating that compensation in tort aims to restore the dependents to the financial position they would have been in if the wrongful act had not occurred (Para 12). Referring to Supreme Court precedents, the Court emphasised the duty to award just and reasonable compensation, balancing inflated demands and unjustly low amounts (Paras 13-15).