JUDGMENT :

1. In wake of instant surge in COVID-19 cases and spread of its highly infectious Omicron variant, abundant caution is being maintained, while hearing the matters in Court, for the safety of all concerned.

2. This writ petition has been preferred claiming the following reliefs:

“(i) By an appropriate writ order or direction the writ petition may kindly be accepted and by an order or direction the order dated 18-01-2011 at Anex.P/10 qua the respondent No.4, impugned order dated 22- 01-2011 at Annex.P/12 and impugned order dated 21- 09-2012 at Annex.P/26 be declared illegal and be quashed and set aside.

(ii) By an appropriate order or direction respondents may be directed to allow the distributorship to the petitioner.

(iii) Exemplary cost be imposed for causing undue harassment.”

3. The petitioner in person, submitted that the respondent-Hindustan Petroleum Corporation (for short, ‘HPCL’), along with two other Oil Companies, issued a common notice, dated 13.03.2010, at Annexure P/1, whereby applications were invited for appointment of LPG Distributors at various locations specified therein, and that the petitioner filed an application for the same.

4. The petitioner in person further submitted that the selection process was concluded after the interviews, that were held on 19.06.2010 and the result, at Annexure P/3, was declared. The petitioner in person also submitted that respondent No.4- Mr. Jagdish Suthar, was shown as the first empanelled applicant, following which one Mr. Laxman Singh was shown as the second and the petitioner was shown as the third, empanelled applicant.

5. The petitioner in person further submitted that she, upon being informed by one Advocate, Mr. Khetaram Choudhary (who had sought information under the Right to Information Act, 2005, and that the same was provided to him vide letter dated 18.01.2011, issued to him by the respondent-Corporation) informed her that certain misrepresentations made by the second empanelled applicant were found to be substantiated and established, and that despite certain glaring issues pertaining to the candidature of the first empanelled applicant, i.e. respondent No. 4, the respondent-Corporation incorrectly found that he was eligible for grant of LPG Distributorship.

6. The petitioner in person further submitted that the respondent No.4 was in fact, not eligible to be selected, citing the following reasons for the same:

6.1 Respondent no. 4 was in fact, a Non Resident of India (hereinafter referred to as ‘NRI’), which is clearly violative of the qualification, as laid down under Point 2 (b) of ‘Common Eligibility Criteria for all Categories’ in the Notice for Appointment of LPG Distributors, dated 13.10.2010, which states that an eligible candidate must be a resident of India.

6.1.1 Respondent No.4, of his admission in Para. 12 in his application made in pursuance of the notice, at Annex P/4, states that he had been serving as a Customs Clerk in UPS Supply Chain Solutions Inc. in Dubai since 07.11.2007 until after March 2010, when the said application was made.

6.1.2 Respondent no. 4 was in fact not a Resident of India, as he did not fulfil the criteria for the same as per Section 6 of the Income Tax Act, as on the date of the affidavit, which he submitted alongwith his application made under the aforementioned notice.

Section 6 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 reads as follows:-

“6.For the purposes of this Act,—

(1) An individual is said to be resident in India in any previous year, if he—

(a) is in India in that year for a period or periods amounting in all to one hundred and eighty-two days or more ; or

(b) [***]

(c) having within the four years preceding that year been in India for a period or periods amounting in all to three hundred and sixty-five days or more, is in India for a period or periods amounting in all to sixty days or more in that year.

Explanation 1.—In the case of an individual,—

(a) being a citizen of India, who leaves India in any previous year as a member of th