Back
2006 Supreme(P&H) 1141
PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
M.M.Kumar, J.
Reekha Kumari
Versus
Union Of India
Civil Writ Petition No. 12218 of 2001,
Decided On : MARCH 17, 2006
Allotment of L.P.G. Distributorship - Where a selected candidate is found to be ineligible then relief is to be granted to the next candidate on the select list.
Headnote:Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 226, 227 - Allotment of L.P.G. Distributorship under open category - Eligibility condition was that gross family income be not more than Rs. 2 lacs in the preceeding financial year 1999 - 2000 - Out of 80 candidates interviewed the petitioner was shown at Sr. No. 2 - The petitioner is stated to have declared his annual income as well as experience correctly and truly whereas respondent No. 4 is alleged to have no experience - Income of respondent No. 4 was found excess than the required amount of Rs. 2 lacs in the relevant financial year as per advertisement - Report of Civil Judge confirmed with regard to excess income of Respondent No. 4 - Selected candidate is found ineligible - Relief - Scope of? Held, Where a selected candidate is found to be ineligible, then relief is to be granted to the next candidate on the select list - It would be just and appropriate to award LPG Distributorship to the petitioner - Further directed that LPG Distributorship be awarded to the petitioner who is the next eligible and meritorious candidate - Respondent No. 4 is also saddled with costs of Rs. 25000/- which shall be paid to the petitioner as the cost of litigation - Writ allowed - Rajbala case followed. (Paras 29 - 31)
Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 226, 227 - Allotment of L.P.G. Distributorship - Criteria for selection - Criteria found to be illegal - Effect of - Held, Where the criteria is found to be illegal, it may be necessary for the Court to quash the whole selection and to direct fresh selection the basis of a new advertisement. (Paras 22 and 29)
Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 226, 227 - Allotment of LPG Distributorship - Selected candidate found to be ineligible - Held, LPG Distributorship be awarded to the petitioner who is the next eligible and meritorious candidate. (Para 33)
Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 226, 227 - Judicial Review - Allotment of Distributorship of L.P.G. - Unveil of the criteria devised by respondents No. 2 and 3 - Allotment made in favour of ineligible candidate - Such a judicial review cannot be considered as exercise of appellate jurisdiction. (Para 32)
Judicial quotations - Human nature is complex - It leads people to display their wealth in marriages, various parties and by building huge bungalows - Then it also leads people to conceal their wealth - The occasions, of course, are different. (Para 1)
Income Tax assessee - Non assesse - Distinction of - Held, a person who is not an income tax assessee stand entirely different footing and he does not need to disclose his gross income. (Para 32)
M.M.Kumar, J.
1. Human nature is complex. It leads people to display their wealth in marriages, various parties and by building huge bungalows, then it also leads people to conceal their wealth. The occasions, of course, are different. The instant case reveals concealment of income rather than its display because occasion has been a different one. The selection of respondent No. 4-Jagdish Lal for allotment of LPG-distributorship, is the subject matter of challenge in this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution. His selection has been challenged on the ground that his income exceeds the criteria laid down in the advertisement issued by respondents 2 and 3-Indian Oil Corporation. The prayer made by the petitioner, who herself was a candidate for the allotment of LPG distributorship is for quashing the selection of respondent No. 4 and for allotting die distributorship to her as she has been found in the list of selected candidate at Sr. No. 2.
Brief Facts:
A LPG distributorship became available under the open category for Cheeka, District Kaithal and the same was required to be allotted to an eligible person. Accordingly, an advertisement was issued by respondent No. 2 for allotment of LPG distributorship in respect of open category on 21.8.2000 (P-1). In the advertisement eligibility conditions were mentioned. In Sub-clause (e) at Item 2, the criteria with regard to income was gross family income of not more than Rs. 2,00,000/- in the preceding financial year 1999-2000. The closing date for submitting the application was 6.10.2000. The petitioner applied on 5.10.2000 and deposited the application form with the Area Office, Karnal of respondent No. 2. The eligibility criteria for awarding the LPG distributorship was circulated along with the application form. The petitioner was called for interview vide letter dated 10.5.2001 and she was to appear on 5.6.2001 at 10.30 a.m. She claimed to have submitted all the requisite documents as well as affidavit at the time of interview. Out of 80 candidates interviewed, the petitioner was shown at Sr. No. 2 and respondent No. 4 was placed at Sr. No. 1 in the select list. Result was declared on the notice board of respondent No. 2 and the hand written result dated 8.6.2001 has been placed on record (P-5). The allegation of the petitioner is that respondent No. 4, who has been placed at Sr. No. 1 in the select list, is in fact ineligible for allotment because his income exceeds far more than the maximum limit of Rs. 2,00,000/- as fixed by respondent No. 2. A representation in that regard was made by the petitioner to respondent No. 2 alleging that respondent No. 4 has filed wrong declaration mentioning his annual income to be less than Rs. 2,00,000/-. It has been alleged that respondent No 4 has concealed material facts from respondent Nos. 2 and 3. The petitioner is stated to have declared his annual income as well as experience as a Science Mistress correctly and truly whereas respondent No. 4 is alleged to have no experience who has falsely claimed to be an agriculturist. In para 9 of the petition, it has been alleged that the petitioner has gross annual income of Rs. 3,55,184.80. The break up has been given in sub-paras of para 9 and the same are summed up as under:
(a) Income of Rs. 15,658/-. There were two Cumulative Deposit Receipts (C.D.R.) amounting to Rs. 52,000/- each in the name of Smt. Laxmi Devi mother of the respondent No. 4 and in the name of Smt. Prem Kanta wife of respondent No. 4. Both were issued on 19.9.1997. The date of maturity as mentioned in the C.D.Rs. is 19.12.2000. The CDRs are to bear interest at the rate of 12% per annum. Both are to be held by either of them or the survivor. Smt. Laxmi Devi mother of the respondent No. 4 had died on 17.5.1998 and thus automatically the said amount of C.D.R.s became the property of Smt. Prem Kanta being surviving person. This fact has been concealed by the respondent No. 4 while applying for the LPG distrib
