Pending criminal charges do not disqualify candidates for dealership, especially for juveniles, unless formal charges are framed, emphasizing the protection of juvenile rights in selection processes.

JUDGMENT :

G. Anupama Chakravarthy, J.

1. The petitioner has filed the present Writ petition for the following reliefs:

I) Issuance of writ in the nature of certiorari quashing apart of the order dated 20.12.2017 passed by respondent no. 7 by which it is observed that the statement made by respondent no.10 in affidavit at Para 7 is not contrary to the facts.

ii.) Issuance of writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to appoint the petitioner as dealer after cancelling the dealership of respondent no.10 because petitioner position in select list was in 2nd position and against petitioner no criminal case is pending nor any adverse remarks is observed by any authority.

iii) To pass such other order or orders as may deem fit and proper.

2. It is the second round of litigation. At the outset, the petitioner has filed CWJC No. 10224 of 2009 for setting aside the selection made by the private Respondent No. 10, namely, Punam Kumari on the ground that the allegation of Private respondent no. 10 is that his Tanker No. BR44G/3575 in the name of Private Respondent No. 10 and also the name of Pump namely Baba Brahmeshwar Nath Feeling Station, Brahmpur, Buxar was seized by the authority of Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. on 28.05.2007 and the tanker was suspended due to market test the sample of Oil was failed and for issuance of writ of mandamus for directing and commanding the respondent authorities to consider the petitioner for selection and the petitioner published result is 2nd position of merit list vide the Interview dated 23.07.2008 and make a fresh inquiry of reopen the pump, they already suspended and not Blacklisted by the Respondent Authority…"-.

3. This Court on considering the contentions and merits of both the parties passed a detailed order dated 30.01.2015 in CWJC No. 10224 of 2009, which is as follows:

“6. From the reading of the aforementioned column of the application, it does not become very clear as to what was the actual debarment. Whether, mere filing of an F.I.R. could have been a disqualification or whether only after framing of charge, the person was sought to be disqualified ?

7. In that view of the matter, while this Court would find it difficult to allow the prayer of the petitioner holding respondent No. 10 to be disqualified on the basis of alleged false declaration in respect of pendency of a criminal case, nothing said in this order, however, will come in the way of the petitioner in approaching the authorities of the Indian Oil Corporation in satisfying them that the respondent no. 10, on account of pendency of the criminal case, was disqualified to be allotted the petroleum outlet, in question.

8. With the aforementioned observation and direction, this writ application is disposed of.”

4. This Court vide order dated 30.01.2015 has given liberty to the petitioner to approach the authorities i.e. the Indian Oil Corporation in satisfying them that the respondent no. 10, on account of pendency of the criminal case, was disqualified to be allotted the petroleum outlet in question. In pursuance thereof, the petitioner submitted his representation on 09.09.2017 to the authorities of Indian Oil Corporation, stating therein that, at the time of allotment, a criminal case was pending and a chargesheet had also been submitted by the police against respondent No. 10, Punam Kumari. This fact was not disclosed in the affidavit submitted to the Indian Oil Corporation. The petitioner