IMPORTANT POINT
The decision not to allot the dealership to an applicant on account of the fact that he did not correctly disclose the income and thus violated his own declaration in his undertaking incorporated in the application is justified when there was a requirement to disclose the true and correct fact which does not appear to have been done.

JUDGMENT

Dr. Arijit Pasayat, J. — Leave granted.

2. Challenge in this appeal is the order passed by a Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court dismissing the Writ Petition filed by Shiv Kant Yadav, the appellant herein.

3. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:

Indian Oil Corporation (in short the ‘Corporation’) invited applications from desirous persons by offering advertisements through publication in newspapers to select suitable persons and grant Letter of Intent (in short ‘LOI’) to award dealership of SKO/LDO at Jaleshar, Dist. Etah. Appellant and several others applied for the same. The Selection Board scrutinized the applications on 28th and 29th November, 2003. Names of the applicants in order of preference were indicated in the panel of selected candidates, on the basis of which the Corporation proposed to award dealership. They are as follows: (i) appellant- Shiv Kant Yadav; (ii) respondent No.4- Smt. Usha Sharma and (iii) Hari Om Singh who was not impleaded in the writ petition. Usha and Hari Om Singh filed complaints inter-se between themselves against aforesaid selection contending that candidates did not disclose the correct information in their applications and, therefore, were not qualified to get dealership. The Corporation held an enquiry on the basis of the complaint made against the appellant and relying on the report received after enquiry passed the order cancelling the selection of the appellant. Consequently, the Head Office of the Corporation directed the concerned authority to cancel the selection of the appellant and to issue LOI in favour of respondent No.4 after ensuring that there was no complaint/court case pending against the proposed allottee.

4. The order was challenged by the appellant by filing a writ petition.

5. Appellant in the Writ Petition took the stand that as per the enquiry report the total income of the appellant had been fixed at Rs.1,64,000/- per annum vis-a-vis Rs. 84,000/- as disclosed in his application form. The discrepancy has no bearing as the eligibility criteria was that the income should not be above rupees two lakhs in the last financial year. The complaint made by Hari Om Singh against Smt. Usha was pending and no LOI could be issued without holding an enquiry.

6. The Corporation took the stand that the Executive Summary report discloses that incorrect information had been given and it has been specifically made clear that any concealment of facts/mis-information would result in rejection of the application.

7. The decision not to allot the dealership to the appellant was on account of the fact that he did not correctly disclose the income and thus violated his own declaration in his undertaking incorporated in the application.

8. With reference to the application form and the undertaking the High Court held that it was obviously clear that the income was not fully disclosed. The plea that the income was less than rupees two lakhs, did not materially affect the eligibility of the appellant was not accepted and accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed.

9. In support of the appeal, it is submitted that there was no mens rea and mere mistake and unintended omission cannot be a ground for cancellation. The income of S.K. Fertilizers was not necessary to be disclosed. In the affidavit before the Selection Board it was clearly stated that S.K. Constructions may have come into existence in 2002-2003.

10. Learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand supported the order saying that once there is suppression in view of the undertaking the allotment was to be cancelled.

11. The fact of making a wrong statement in the application form and the effect of the undertaking though rendered in different context in Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan and Ors. v. Ram Ratan Yadav (2003 (3) SCC 437), State of A.P. and Anr. v. T. Suryachandra Rao (2005 (6) SCC 149) and Bhaurao Dagdu Paralkar v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. (2005 (7) SCC 605) need to be noted.

12. In Kendriya Vidyal