Transparency and strict adherence to terms and conditions in the grant of dealership by a public enterprise, consequences of furnishing false information, and the need for unbiased verification processes.

T.S. Sivagnanam, J.

This writ appeal by the third respondent in W.P.(MD) No.13063 of 2011 is directed against the order, dated 03.08.2012, by which the writ petition filed by the first respondent/writ petitioner was allowed and the appellant/third respondent was held to be disqualified for being granted LPG Dealership and a consequential direction was issued to consider the claim of the first respondent/writ petitioner.

2. Heard Mr. T.V. Ramanujam, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Mr. T.V. Badrinathan, learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. B. Saravanan, learned counsel for the first respondent and Mr. K. Muralidharan, learned Standing Counsel for I.O.C., appearing for the respondents 2 and 3.

3. For the sake of convenience, the parties in this appeal shall be referred to as per the description in the writ petition. Thus, the appellant will be called as the third respondent, the first respondent will be called as the writ petitioner and the respondents 2 and 3 will be called as the respondents 1 and 2.

4. The writ petitioner challenged the grant of LPG Dealership to the third respondent primarily on three grounds. Firstly, the third respondent has produced a bogus experience certificate stating that she was employed in Sri Shanmuga Service Station, H.P.C. Dealer, Dindigul, for the period from 02.03.2004 to 31.03.2005 and from 01.04.2005 to 31.12.2006, when in fact she was a student in Oxford Engineering College, Trichy, pursuing her B.E. Computer Science Engineering, which course she joined on 22.07.2002 and completed on 24.05.2006. Therefore, it was contended that as per the Experience Certificate issued by Sri Shanmuga Service Station, the third respondent was a full-time employee and if it is so, she could not have pursued the full-time B.E. Course in a College situated in Trichy, when H.P.C. Dealer was in Dindigul, which is more than 90 Kms., from Trichy. Therefore, in terms of Clause 19(g) and (h) of the General Conditions in the advertisement, the third respondent's application ought to have been outrightly rejected by the respondent-Oil Corporation.

5. The next ground is that the third respondent does not fulfill the income criteria with regard to herself and her spouse and supportive documents were not produced and the team of officials, who conducted the field verification, appear to have been very obliging to the third respondent, which is evident from the field verification report.

6. Further, it is contended that the experience certificate issued itself is a bogus document, since the said Dealer's licence was suspended on 30.08.2005 and was terminated on 23.06.2006 and the Field Verification Officers' report that the fact regarding the genuineness of the experience certificate could not be verified, no credence could have been granted to the third respondent based on such certificate. Further, the report also clearly reveals that the minimum deposit to be maintained has not been complied with, yet the Field Investigation Officers have made certain remarks, which appear to advance the case of the third respondent.

7. The learned Single Judge was convinced with the case as projected by the writ petitioner and allowed the writ petition and also issued a direction to the respondent-Oil Corporation to consider the case of the writ petitioner as she was ranked No.2 in the merit list. The respondent-Oil Corporation has not challenged the order passed by the learned Single Judge, but following the same, terminated the dealership granted to the third respondent and as of now, the third respondent is operating based on the order of stay granted in this appeal.

8. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the third respondent submitted that two experience certificates have been issued, one from Sri Shanmuga Service Station and the other one is from Star Agro Add and the Field Investigation Officers verified the certificates and have recorded their opinion and under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, this Court can