Point of Law: LPG distributorship - Advertisement - If any statement made by the applicant in the application or in the documents enclosed therewith or subsequently submitted in pursuance of the application at any stage is found to have been suppressed/misrepresented/incorrect or false affecting eligibility, then the application/ candidature is liable to be rejected without assigning any reason.

JUDGMENT :

RAVI KRISHAN KAPUR, J.

1. The petitioner assails the issuance of a letter of intent in favour of the respondent no. 6 by the Indian Oil Corporation Limited (IOC) for a LPG Distributorship in the District of Murshidabad.

2. The brief facts of this case are that the IOC published an advertisement in the “Anandabazar Patrika” on 31 August, 2017 inviting online applications for appointment of LPG distributorships in various locations throughout the State of West Bengal. The last date of submission of the application form was 3 October, 2017 which was subsequently extended to 18 October, 2017. The advertisement clearly spelt out that all applications shall be strictly guided by the terms of the selection brochure available in the website of the respective oil companies. There was a further stipulation in the advertisement that if any incorrect or false statement is found in any application the same would result in rejection of the application.

3. Pursuant to the aforesaid application, the petitioner submitted her application on 18 October, 2017 in the prescribed format alongwith all necessary details.

4. The respondent No. 6 also submitted her application on 24 September, 2017. The application form submitted by the respondent no. 6 mentioned the date of the registered lease deed as 21 September, 2017. Thereafter, a lucky draw was conducted on 30 May, 2018 among the eligible candidates wherein the respondent No. 6 was declared to be the successful candidate and was asked to submit all necessary documents for scrutiny. Subsequently, upon scrutiny and field verification, the respondent no. 6 was issued a letter of intent by the IOC.

5. The petitioner challenges the selection of the respondent no. 6 on the ground that respondent no. 6 had fraudulently and incorrectly mentioned the registration date of the lease deed as 21 September 2017, whereas the lease deed was actually registered on 11 October 2017. Although the petitioner made a representation dated 26 August, 2019 to the IOC to have the aforesaid fact considered before the issuance of the letter of intent, the IOC without considering such representation issued the letter of intent in favour of the respondent no. 6.

6. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that in terms of Clause 26 of the brochure it was obligatory on the part of the IOC to reject the application of the respondent no. 6 which contained false and incorrect statements. It is further alleged that the land offered by the respondent no. 6 was classified as Aman which evidenced that contrary to the terms of the advertisement the respondent no. 6 was not in possession nor in a position to construct a godown on the date of submission of her application. It is further alleged that the respondent company relaxed the conditions as envisaged in the brochure for the respondent no. 6 without any reason. Hence, it is submitted that the selection of the respondent no. 6 should have been cancelled on the ground that she had made false and incorrect statements in her application form.

7. It is submitted on behalf of the IOC that all terms and conditions of the advertisement have been strictly adhered to in the instant case. It is further alleged that it is often found that at the time of filing applications, candidates make mistakes which ought to be ignored to reduce the number of rejections in the process of selection. It is also alleged that the respondent no. 6 complied with the prescribed eligibility criteria set out in the brochure and was chosen through an open draw which was conducted on 30 May, 2018. Thus, there has been no special treatment meted out to the respondent no. 6. It is further alleged that the classification of the land offered by a prospective applicant can only be considered at the time of appointment of distributorship by which time the proposed candidate would need to change the classification from the appropriate Authority to a suitable classification as required in the brochure. It is further s