Misrepresentation in application for dealership leads to cancellation of allotment, emphasizing the importance of full disclosure in public sector dealings.

ORDER :

1. Application seeking deletion of proforma Respondent No.1 from the array of parties is allowed at the risk of the appellant.

2. Cause title be amended accordingly.

3. Leave granted.

4. This appeal arises from the judgment and order passed by the High Court of Himachal Pradesh at Shimla dated 6-7-2023 in CWP No.835/2020, by which the Writ Petition filed by the Respondent No.5 -herein (original petitioner before the High Court) came to be allowed and thereby the allotment of dealership by Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited to run a petrol pump in favour of the appellant - herein came to be cancelled.

5. The facts in brief necessary for the disposal of this appeal may be set out thus:-

6. The Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited (for short, the “BPCL”) issued an advertisement dated 25-11-2018 for appointment/allotment of retail outlet dealerships for petrol pumps in the State of Maharashtra.

7. It is not in dispute that the appellant -herein made an online application showing his willingness for being appointed/allotted retail outlet dealership.

8. The appellant -herein claims to be falling within the OBC category and accordingly he applied against the OBC category on 24-12-2018.

9. The appellant was included in Group II as mentioned in clause 4(v) of the brochure for selection of dealers for regular and rural retail outlet, i.e., the appellant had affirmed offer for suitable piece of land for purchase/lease belonging to a third party.

10. It appears from the materials on record that the appellant offered a piece of land owned by Shri Lila Dhar and Shri Dinesh Kumar bearing KK No. 4/5, Khasra No. 167/70 measuring 7-6 Bighas situated at Mauza Patta.

11. It also appears that there was some dispute between Mr. Lila Dhar and Mr. Dinesh Kumar as regards the land which was offered by the appellant herein. However, the same ultimately came to be settled to the satisfaction of the Corporation.

12. The Respondent No.5 -herein preferred a Civil Writ Petition No.835/2020 in the High Court and prayed for the following reliefs:-

“i) Issue a writ of certiorari to quash the letter of intent issued to the respondent No. 5 on the basis of draw lots held on 17.06.2019 for running of RO Dealership at village Patta, Tehsil Arki, District Solan, H.P.

ii) Issue a writ of mandamus directing the Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 to process the case of the petitioner for allotment of RO Dealership being most eligible applicant forthwith.

iii) Issue writ of mandamus directing the Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 to action who initiate appropriate has connived with respondent No. 5 in violating of RO Dealership Guidelines.

iv) Call for the records pertaining to the case at hand.

v) Direct the Respondent authorities to pay the cost of the petitions.”

13. The Writ Petition came to be allowed vide the impugned order passed by the High Court.

14. The High Court while allowing the Writ Petition filed by the Respondent No.5 observed in paras 32 to 44 as under:-

“32) None of these facts had been disclosed by respondent no.5 in his application.

33) Admittedly, Annexure P-3 Brochure issued by the Corporation for selection of dealer for retail outlets, contains Clause 22 which states as under:-

“22 FALSE INFORMATION

If any statement made in the application or in the documents enclosed therewith or subsequently submitted in pursuance of the application by the candidate at any stage is found to have been suppressed/misrepresented/incorrect or false, then the application is liable to be rejected without assigning any reason and in case the applicant has been appointed as a dealer, the dealership is liable to be terminated. In such cases the candidate/dealer shall have no claim whatsoever against the respective Company.”34) Thus, if any statement made in the application submitted by an applicant like respondent no.5 was at any stage found to have been false, incorrect or certain facts are found to have been suppressed or misrepresented, then the application was liable to be rejected by the Corporatio