# Vikash Rao v. Union Of India & Ors

- **Citation:** (2016) 8 ILRA 279
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2016-08-03
- **Bench:** V.K. Shukla, Mahesh Chandra Tripathi
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/vikash-rao-v-union-of-india-ors-44244
- **Pages:** 6

## Text

8 All. Vikash Rao Vs Union Of India & Ors.
279
(2016) 8 ILRA 279
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 03.08.2016

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE V.K. SHUKLA, J.
THE HON'BLE MAHESH CHANDRA TRIPATHI, J.

Writ C No.- 42116 Of 2015

Vikash Rao ...Petitioner
Versus
Union Of India & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for Petitioner:
Siddharth Khare, Ashok Khare

Counsel for Respondents:
A.S.G.I., S.C., Sanjiv Singh, Yogendra Kumar

Petitioner is before the court to quash the order dated 15.07.2015 issued by the Senior Divisional Retail Sales
Manager, Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., for a direction to restrain the respondents from taking any action on the
basis of order impugned and for a direction to the respondents to forthwith issue the Letter of Intent to the
petitioner on the basis of his selection dated 10.04.2013 for allotment of Retail Outlet Dealership. An
advertisement in 'Dainik Jagran' dated 26.10.2011, whereby applications were invited for appointment of
Retail Outlet Dealers with regard to several sites in the State.

Court observed that on the date i.e. 23.12.2011 the petitioner had proceeded to misrepresent the
Corporation, wherein the petitioner has deliberately shown the amount of Rs.10,40,000/- in his account but
actually on the said date thereafter Rs.4.5 lacs had been withdrawn and consequently on the said date only
Rs.5,90,000/- was available in the said account. Once this fact has been brought into the notice of the
Corporation, they proceeded to cancel the claim of the petitioner. After considering the facts and
circumstances it was clear that the petitioner tried to make a deliberate attempt to place the incorrect
statement of account on the date of submission of application i.e. 23.12.2011 as Rs.10,40,000/- but actually
on the said date the petitioner had only Rs.5,90,000/- in his account and court is of the opinion that the
petitioner had misrepresented the Corporation and as per the provisions contained under the advertisement
the Corporation has every right to reject the candidature, in case any misrepresentation had been made.

The writ petition sans merit and is accordingly dismissed.

(Delivered by Hon'ble V.K. Shukla, J.
&
Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi, J.)

1. Vikash Rao is before this Court for a direction to quash the order dated 15.07.2015
issued by the Senior Divisional Retail Sales Manager, Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., Gorakhpur
280 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

Divisional office, Gorakhpur; for a direction to restrain the respondents from taking any action on
the basis of order impugned and for a direction to the respondents to forthwith issue the Letter of
Intent to the petitioner on the basis of his selection dated 10.04.2013 for allotment of Retail Outlet
Dealership (Petrol Pump) at the site between mile stone no.23 to 26 on Kasaya-Deoria Road (State
Highway-79) District Deoria pursuant to advertisement dated 26.10.2011 within stipulated period.

2. This much is reflected from the record that the respondent-Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.,
Lucknow (in short "the Corporation") issued an advertisement in 'Dainik Jagran' dated 26.10.2011,
whereby applications were invited for appointment of Retail Outlet Dealers with regard to several
sites in the State. The applications were also invited for Retail Outlet Petrol Pump Dealership in
question on Kasya-Deoria Road (State Highway-79) between Mile Stone No.23-26 specified at SN
225 of the said advertisement. The petitioner being fully qualified and eligible also applied
pursuant to the aforesaid advertisement. The application so submitted was accompanied by several
documents including proof of ownership of requisite land and a photocopy of the pass book of the
petitioner with regard to Account No.3157567504 of Central Bank at Gadrampur Branch, Deoria
and other documents. It is claimed that an amount of Rs.10,40,000/- was available in the account of
the petitioner on the relevant date i.e. 23.12.2011. Consequently, in response to his application he
had been called for an interview, which was held on 10.4.2013. On the said date total five
applicants were interviewed and the petitioner was declared as duly selected for allocation of Retail
Outlet Dealership in question. A photocopy of displayed mark sheet dated 10.4.2013 is also
appended as Annexure No.3 to the writ petition. A perusal of the aforesaid mark sheet would
demonstrate that other four candidates namely Ashutosh Kumar Rai, Farware Alam Siddiqui,
Pramod Kumar Jaiswal and Sanjay Jaiswal were categorised as not qualified on account of their
having secured less than 60 marks on the basis of various parameters specified for selection. In the
said marksheet the petitioner stood at first position having 82.74 marks out of total 100 marks. It is
submitted that based upon the aforesaid selection a letter of intent ought to have been issued to the
petitioner but a complaint was made by Pramod Kumar Jiaswal against the selection of the
petitioner, however, the said complaint was rejected by the General Manager, U.P. State Office-1
of India Oil Corporation Ltd. by order dated 25.6.2014. In the meantime, Pramod Kumar Jaiswal
has filed Writ Petition No.62083 of 2014 (Pramod Kumar Jaiswal v. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. &
Ors.) challenging the selection of the petitioner. The said writ petition was dismissed by this Court
on 28.11.2014. It is submitted that inspite of aforesaid facts, the letter of intent was not issued in
favour of the petitioner. Consequently, the Senior Divisional Retail Sales Manager vide order dated
15.7.2015 has proceeded to cancel the candidature of the petitioner for the proposed location on the
basis of vigilance report.

3. In this background, Shri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri
Siddharth Khare have contended that the entire vigilance enquiry had been made by the
respondents behind the back and at no point of time they have proceeded to issue any notice to the
petitioner in this regard and inspite of completion of all the requisite formalities, the respondents
had proceeded to cancel the candidature of the petitioner and as such it is contended that the order
impugned is in violation of the principle of natural justice. Once a complaint was made against the
petitioner and the competent authority had examined the matter and rejected the said objection vide
8 All. Vikash Rao Vs Union Of India & Ors.
281
order dated 25.6.2014 upholding the selection of the petitioner and once all the objections have
been turned down, then the subsequent order impugned amounts to review of all earlier orders,
which cannot sustain. Without any authority to review its earlier order, the respondents have
proceeded to review the same, which is per se bad.

4. Shri Ashok Khare, Sr. Advocate further makes submissions that as per Paragraph 13 (ii)
of the brochure, which was issued by the Corporation governing selection of Dealers for Petrol/
Diesel Outlet dated 2.9.2011, eight parameters were provided over which the allocation is to be
made. The marks so indicated demonstrates that under the category of capacity to raise finances for
which twenty five marks were allocated, twenty marks were allocated for the financial condition
and five marks for creditworthiness. The twenty marks specified for financial condition stood
further sub-categorized into twelve marks for availability of liquid funds, four marks for possession
of movable and immovable property and four marks for income from various sources. It is
contended that even in case the petitioner did not have the requisite liquid fund on the date of
application and 12 marks allocated for liquid funds are deleted from the marks allocated to the
petitioner, even in that eventuality the petitioner remains qualified candidate having 70.74 marks to
his credit and even in that eventuality he continues to maintain the first position in the selection
amongst five applicants. As such it is contended that the order impugned is per se bad and in
violation of the selection guidelines and this Court should come to rescue and reprieve of the
petitioner.

5. On the other hand, Shri Sanjiv Singh, learned counsel for the Corporation has
vehemently opposed the writ petition on the ground that the petitioner had proceeded to submit his
account statement for his account in question in which availability of Rs.10.40 lacs had been shown
on 23.12.2011. The petitioner has concealed the material fact in the matter and had not proceeded
to submit his financial status as per the terms and conditions and even though without required
financial capability had proceeded to submit his claim. The last date for submissions of application
form was also 23.12.2011. During field verification of documents of the petitioner, on perusal of
bank statement, it was observed that an amount of Rs.4.5 lacs was withdrawn on the same day i.e.
on 23.12.2011 and only Rs.5.90 lacs was available as on the date of application/ submission i.e.
23.12.2011. As per point 13 of the application form, provided in the advertisement, amount shown
in the application form in support of financial capabilities should be valid on the date of application
i.e. closing balance on the date of application and as such the petitioner had proceeded to
misrepresent the Corporation. As per Clause 10 (ja) of advertisement, the application of a candidate
will be rejected in case of misrepresentation of facts. As such he submits that the Corporation has
every right to find out the true financial status of the incumbent, who is interested to run the outlet.
It is the responsibility of the Corporation to ensure that by all eventuality the incumbent in whose
favour the allotment is going to be made must have financial viability / capability so that he may
run the outlet. It is submitted that as such there is no infirmity or illegality in the order impugned
and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed with cost.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner, regarding the aforesaid withdrawal from the account,
has explained in para 27 of the writ petition as under:-
282 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

"27. That on account of emergent circumstances on 23.12.011 an amount of
Rs.4,50,000/- had to be withdrawn from the said account. It is specifically stated that the aforesaid
withdrawal was made after up-dating passbook had been enclosed and submitted along with the
application form."

7. In this background, we have proceeded to examine the record in question. This much is
reflected that the petitioner had proceeded to submit application for retail outlet on 22.12.2011.
Along with the said application the petitioner had appended the statement of Account
No.3157567504 of Central Bank of India, Branch Garhrampur, Deoria, wherein the amount of
Rs.10,40,000/- is shown in the account on the relevant date i.e. 23.12.2011. The entry in the bank
statement so appended along with the writ petition was hand written. At the time of argument, the
pass book of the petitioner's account updated upto 21.09.2012 has been placed by Shri Siddharth
Khare. For adjudicating the present controversy it would be relevant to indicate the transactions on
the relevant date i.e. 23.12.2011, which is quoted as under:-

Date
Cheque No.
Particulars
Withdrawals
Deposits
Balance
22/12/11

BY
CASH
PAN
DETAILS
AJJ

440000
440000
23/12/11
179673
TO TRF. TR

150000
590000
23/12/11

BY
CASH
PAN
DETAILS
AJJ

150000
740000
23/12/11

BY
CASH
PAN
DETAILS
AJJ

300000
1040000
23/12/11
463
CSH (CHQ)
Paid to sanjy
r
150000

890000
23/12/11
461
CSH (CHQ)
Paid to sanjy
r
300000

590000

8. The aforesaid entries clearly proceed to mention that on the said date i.e. 23.12.2011 an
amount of Rs.1,50,000/- has been deposited in the account through cheque no.179673. Thereafter,
Rs.1,50,000/- and Rs.3,00,000/- have been deposited through cash on the same day making total
amount of Rs.10,40,000/- in the said account. But surprisingly on the same day, two transactions
had also been made by which an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- through cheque no.000463 and
8 All. Vikash Rao Vs Union Of India & Ors.
283
Rs.3,00,000/- through cheque no.000461 have been debited from the account making Rs.5,90,000/-
available in the account.

9. On the basis of aforesaid facts, we are of the considered opinion that on the said date i.e.
23.12.2011 the petitioner had proceeded to misrepresent the Corporation, wherein the petitioner has
deliberately shown the amount of Rs.10,40,000/- in his account but actually on the said date
thereafter Rs.4.5 lacs had been withdrawn and consequently on the said date only Rs.5,90,000/-
was available in the said account. Once this fact has been brought into the notice of the
Corporation, they proceeded to cancel the claim of the petitioner.

10. The entire claim of the petitioner has been set out on the basis of his account
no.3157567504 and no other financial status has been shown or claimed. We proceed to make a
mention that the pass book of the petitioner updated upto 21.9.2012 has been placed before this
Court and on 21.09.2012 in his account there was only Rs.96,628/-.

11. The aforementioned facts and circumstances clearly gives an impression that just for
processing his application, the petitioner tried to make a deliberate attempt to place the incorrect
statement of account on the date of submission of application i.e. 23.12.2011 as Rs.10,40,000/- but
actually on the said date the petitioner had only Rs.5,90,000/- in his account and as such we are of
the considered opinion that the petitioner had misrepresented the Corporation and as per the
provisions contained under the advertisement the Corporation has every right to reject the
candidature, in case any misrepresentation had been made. It is also apparent that as per the policy
of the Corporation, they have every right to ensure that whatever the funds are mentioned along
with the application on the relevant date, the applicant should ensure that the minimum funds
required for the said purpose be available as closing balance at least on the said date.

12. In view of this, we find that the action of the respondents are fully justified under the
present facts and circumstances and impugned order does not call for any interference under
Art.226 of the Constitution of India.

13. The writ petition sans merit and is accordingly dismissed.
------------
284 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

(2016) 8 ILRA 284
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 01.08.2016

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE TARUN AGARWALA, J.
THE HON'BLE VIPIN SINHA, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition (Writ C) No.- 7521 Of 2016
&
Connected With Other Cases

Mange @ Mange Ram ...Petitioner
Versus
State Of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Present petition has been filed praying for a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to allot 10%
developed abadi land in terms of the decision of the Full Bench of this Court in Gajraj and others Vs. State of
U.P. and others, 2011 (11) ADJ 1.

The Full Bench held that the land owners, who had challenged the notifications would be entitled for payment
of additional compensation to the extent of 64.70% in addition to the compensation already received. The Full
Bench further held that the land owners would also be entitled for allotment of development abadi land to the
extent of 10%. The Full Bench in paragraph 482(4) held that the authority will take a decision as to whether
the benefit of additional compensation and allotment of developed abadi plot to the extent of 10% should be
given to those land owners whose writ petition had been dismissed earlier as well as for those land owners,
who had not come to the Court challenging the acquisition proceedings. Court observed that the judgment of
the Full Bench was affirmed by the Supreme Court in Savitri Devi (supra).

While affirming the decision, the direction of the Full Bench in paragraph 484(4) to the authority to consider
the case for payment of additional compensation and allotment of developed abadi plot to those land owners,
who had not challenged the acquisition proceedings or whose writ petitions were dismissed earlier was also
affirmed by the Supreme Court. Based on such direction, the authority took a decision to pay additional
compensation to all the land owners irrespective of the fact as to whether they had challenged the acquisition
proceedings or not. But with regard to allotment of developed abadi land, the authority took a decision not to
allot to those land owners, who had not approached the writ Court on the ground that they have no
developed land to allot to these land owners. The fact that the authority does not have any developed land
for allotment has not been disputed as no rejoinder affidavit has been filed nor any evidence has been
brought on record. Court also find that such decision taken by the Board is neither arbitrary nor
discriminatory.

The Full Bench in order to save the acquisition proceedings had issued the direction for payment of additional
compensation and for allotment of developed abadi plots in the extenuating facts and circumstances of the
case. The Supreme Court acceded to the said consideration holding that the Full Bench was justified in issuing
such directions in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and in order to save the acquisition
proceedings from the vice of arbitrariness. The Supreme Court while affirming the decision of the Full Bench
categorically held that the said decision would not be treated to form a precedent for future cases.