Mere pendency of criminal case without framed charges does not disqualify under dealership advertisement Clause 4; advertisement prevails over application form; delay, investments bar relief; new pleas barred by res judicata principles.

JUDGMENT :

ALOK KUMAR SINHA. J,

Heard the parties.

2. The present Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 13.12.2024 passed in CWJC No. 12241 of 2018, whereby the learned Single Judge has been pleased to dismiss the writ petition filed by the appellant.

The main ground of challenge is that the learned Single Judge has erred in holding that no irregularity was committed by the respondent Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. (IOCL) in selecting Respondent No. 10 for the dealership in question.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the genesis of the dispute lies in the advertisement dated 31.10.1999 inviting applications for grant of SKO/LDO dealership at Brahmpur, District Buxar. The selection process initially culminated in the placement of Respondent No. 10 at Serial No. 1. The matter was subjected to judicial scrutiny and ultimately travelled up to the Hon’ble Supreme Court, which by order dated 21.04.2008 (Annexure: 1) directed reconsideration of the matter by the District Selection Committee on the basis of materials already on record. Pursuant thereto, fresh interviews were conducted in July 2008 and a select list dated 25.07.2008 was published, wherein once again Respondent No. 10 was placed at Serial No. 1 and the appellant at Serial No. 2.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the core issue which arises for consideration in the present appeal is whether Respondent No. 10 suppressed material facts relating to pendency of a criminal case at the time of submission of the application form and at the time of swearing the affidavit dated 22.07.2008. It is submitted that the impugned judgment has failed to appreciate that the selection stood vitiated at its inception on account of deliberate non-disclosure of material information.

It is submitted that Clause 4 of the advertisement and Paragraph 20 of the application form specifically mandated disclosure regarding pendency of any criminal case, framing of charges, and conviction. The eligibility guidelines clearly stipulated that candidates convicted of offences involving moral turpitude or economic offences, as well as those against whom charges have been framed by a competent court, would not be eligible for dealership. The conditions further provided that any incorrect or false statement at any stage would render the candidature liable to rejection and, if appointed, the dealership liable to termination.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that Buxar Town P.S. Case No. 197/1989 was admittedly pending against Respondent No. 10. Cognizance of offence had been taken and charges had been framed on 16.03.2007. It is further submitted that at the relevant point of time, Respondent No. 10 had been declared as an absconder by the competent court, and therefore, the proceedings had not progressed in the ordinary course. It is emphatically submitted that despite full awareness of the pendency of the said criminal case, Respondent No. 10, in her application form as well as in the affidavit dated 23.07.2008 (Annexure: 15), categorically declared that no criminal case was pending against her and that no charges had been framed by any court. The language of the affidavit is unequivocal and leaves no scope for ambiguity. Such declaration is factually incorrect and amounts to a clear case of suppression and misrepresentation.

6. It is further submitted that the learned Single