Back
High Court Of Himachal Pradesh
KAMLESH SHARMA,LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA
RAVINDER KUMAR - Appellant
Versus
UNION OF INDIA - Respondent
C.W. P. No. 1841 of 1993
Decided On : 09/01/1994
PETROLEUM DEALERSHIP - ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA - INCOME LIMIT - FALSE DECLARATION - WITHDRAWAL OF LETTER OF INTENT - RESIDENCE REQUIREMENT - PREFERENCE TO LOCAL CANDIDATES - HANDICAP CERTIFICATE - COMPETENT AUTHORITY.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged the Letter of Intent issued to the third respondent for a retail outlet dealership on the grounds of ineligibility due to income exceeding the limit, false declaration of income, non-residency in the district, and an invalid handicap certificate.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the third respondent had concealed her employment and income, rendering her declaration of annual income untrue. The court also held that the third respondent was not entitled to preference as a local candidate since both she and the petitioner belonged to the same district. The court further found that the handicap certificate issued by an Orthopaedics Surgeon and countersigned by the Chief Medical Officer was valid.
Issues: 1. Whether the third respondent was eligible for the dealership considering her income exceeded the limit and her false declaration of income? 2. Whether the third respondent was entitled to preference as a local candidate? 3. Whether the handicap certificate issued by an Orthopaedics Surgeon and countersigned by the Chief Medical Officer was valid?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the third respondent's concealment of her employment and income rendered her declaration of annual income untrue, violating the eligibility criteria and justifying the withdrawal of the Letter of Intent. 2. The court held that since both the petitioner and the third respondent belonged to the same district, there was no question of giving preference to the third respondent as a local candidate. 3. The court held that the handicap certificate issued by an Orthopaedics Surgeon and countersigned by the Chief Medical Officer was valid, as the Orthopaedics Surgeon was competent to examine and certify the degree of disability.
Final Decision: The court set aside and quashed the Letter of Intent issued to the third respondent and directed Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. to issue the Letter of Intent to the next candidate empanelled by the Oil Selection Board.
Kamlesh Sharma, J.—In this writ petition, the Letter of Intent issued in favour of the third respondent, Smt Kamla Rani, granting her dealership for a dealer owned Petrol and H. S. D. Retail Outlet at Ner Chowk National Highway, District Mandi (hereinafter called the retail outlet) has been challenged on the ground, inter alia, that she was not qualified having her family income more than Rs 50,000 annually in the relevant financial year 1991-92 ; she does not ordinarily reside in District Mandi and was not entitled for preference being a candidate belonging to the District for which the dealership is advertised and her Physically-handicapped certificate produced by her is not issued by the competent authority.
2. The facts in brief are that notice inviting applications for retail outlet, from amongst candidates belonging to "Physically Handicapped/ Personnel of Para Military Forces disabled on duty/Widows of Personnel of Para Military Forces who die in line with the course of duty" was published in the daily Tribune on 13-2-1993 (Annexure P-A), in response to which the petitioner, third respondent Smt. Kamla Rani and intervenor seventh respondent Rajesh Kumar Arora, alongwith other candidates applied. They were interviewed on 6-9-1993 at Hotel Himland (East), Shimla, by the Oil Selection Board (Himachal Pradesh) on whose recommendations, letter of intent for the Retail Outlet was issued to the third respondent. The eligibility criteria for selection for dealership/distributorship is provided in the latest instructions/guidelines. The criteria which are relevant for the controversy raised in this writ petition are reproduced herein-below :— "I. xxx xxx xxx II. xxx xxx xxx III.
1. XXX XXX XXX
2. xxx xxx xxx
3. xxx xxx xxx RESIDENCE (i) For SC/ST & PH categories : According to the directions -in the advertisement, residents of adjoining districts as mentioned in the advertisement can apply. However, other things being equal, preference will be given to candidates belonging to the district in which the proposed dealership/distributorship is to be located. (ii) For FF and Open Categories : A resident of the concerned district alone can apply. (iii) For other than PH candidates in PH categories and DBF category. Residents of any district in the State can apply".
5. xx xx xx
6. xx xx xx
7. ELIGIBILITY FOR PHYSICALLY HANDICAPPED/GOVERN MENT PERSONNEL DISABLED ON DUTY/WIDOWS OF GOVERNMENT PERSONNEL WHO DIE IN THE COURSE OF DUTY. Persons applying for dealership/distributorship under PH category should produce a certificate from the Civil Surgeon/Chief Medical Officer or Supdt. of a Government Hospital that he/ she is orthopaedically handicapped to the extent of minimum 40% permanent/partial disability of either upper or lower limbs or 30% permanent/partial disability of both upper and lower limbs together, or certificates as stipulated in the advertisement".
8. xx xx xx INCOME (FOR ANY CATEGORIES) The candidates income should not be more than Rs. 50,000 per annum. The income for this purpose would include the income of the candidate, his/her spouse, dependent children put together. In case the candidate happens to be dependent on his/ her parents, his/her parents income would also be taken info consideration for computing the total income”. The eligibility criteria were also mentioned in the notice inviting applications appearing in the Tribune (Annexure P-A).
3. According to Sh M. L. Sharma, learned Counsel for the petitioner, the main allegation against the third respondent is that she was not eligible as her income was more than Rs 50,000 per annum, including the income of her husband, for the relevant financial year 1991-92. The petitioner has placed on record the declaration of annual income submitted by the third respondent (Annexure PA-2) alongwith her application wherein she has mentioned her income as "NIL” from all the sources. The income of her husband has been mentioned as Rs. 37,440 from salary. She had also given affidavi
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
