2008(8) Supreme 637
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
S.B. Sinha and Cyriac Joseph, JJ.
Virender Chaudhary — Appellant
versus
Bharat Petroleum Corporation & Ors. — Respondents
Civil Appeal Nos. 6567-69 of 2008
(Arising out of SLP (C) Nos.3456-3458 of 2008)
Decided on : 07-11-2008
(2007)2 SCC 112; (2007)9 SCC 278; (2006)8 SCC 726; 2008 (9) SCALE 40 – Relied upon.
Facts of the case :
1. 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 therefor.
2. However, no 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.
3. Both the appellants as also the respondent No.5 applied in response to the advertisement.
4. Respondent No.5 was found to be the most suitable candidate. 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.
5. Fifth respondent filed a writ petition questioning the decision of the first respondent herein in not awarding the dealership in his favour which has been allowed by the High Court by reason of the impugned judgment.
Finding of the Court :
Impugned order is not sustainable.
Result : Appeal allowed.
JUDGMENT
S.B. Sinha, J. —
1. Leave granted.
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 therefor. In the said advertisement dated 18.7.1998 published in a daily newspaper ‘The Tribune’ and ‘Dainik Tribune’ it was stated :
“2. Eligibility : The applicant should be:
XXX XXX XXX
5. 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 to apply.”
However, no 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 thus :
“6. 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 to apply.”
Clauses 6 and 9 of the advertisement published in ‘The Tribune’ and ‘Dainik Tribune’ on 23.3.2002 read as under :
“6. Candidates convicted for any criminal offence involving moral turpitude/economic offences (other than Freedom Struggle), are not eligible to apply.
XXX XXX XXX
9. 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.”
4. Several criteria were laid down in the application form, paragraph 20 whereof reads as under :
“Have you 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’.”
5. In the manual issued by the respondent No.1, it was stated :
“12. Conviction: (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.”
6. 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 settin
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.