The judgment established the importance of applicants meeting specified eligibility criteria and the consequences of attempting to mislead the court, emphasizing the dismissal of frivolous litigation with costs.

Rameshwar Singh Malik, J.

1. Feeling aggrieved against the impugned orders/letters of even date, i.e. dated 7.7.2014 (Annexures P-4 and P-5), whereby application forms of the petitioner for allotment of retail outlet-dealership of LPG Distributorship were rejected, petitioner has approached this Court by way of present writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ in the nature of Certiorari, for quashing the orders/letters. When this case came up for hearing on 29.9.2014, following order was passed by this Court:-

"Notice of motion for 4.12.2014.

The petitioner shall also be considered on his application along with respondents and if he is not selected on his own merit, the same may be informed to him. If he is found otherwise eligible and he is entitled to be considered for allotment, the same be not passed without express orders are secured from this Court."

2. In compliance of the abovesaid order, written statement has been filed.

3. Learned counsel for respondent Nos. 2 and 3 filed C.M. No. 10567 of 2016, seeking preponement of date of hearing, contending that because of the abovesaid interim order dated 29.9.2014 passed by this Court, further process has been held up and the matter requires urgent hearing.

4. Notice of the application was issued vide order dated 5.9.2016 for 15.9.2016. When the case came up for hearing on 15.9.2016, following order was passed by this Court:-

"Heard at some length.

The only issue involved herein is whether the petitioner, as a matter of fact, was having the requisite amount of Rs. 15 lacs in his bank account on the date when he submitted his application for LPG distributorship in question, which was admittedly a precondition for establishing his eligibility for distributorship.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was having the amount of Rs. 15 lacs in his bank account. He also submits that on 29.09.2014, when notice of motion was issued, he shown a copy of FDR of Rs. 15 lacs to this Court.

Learned counsel for the respondents fairly states that if the petitioner, as a matter of fact, was having the amount of Rs. 15 lacs or more in his bank account on the date of his application for each of the advertised location, then he would be eligible for the distributorship.

In view of above, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks short adjournment to bring the authentic copy of bank statement of his bank account to show that on the date of his application, the petitioner was having the amount of Rs. 15 lacs in his bank account.

List on 22.09.2016."

5. Application for preponement of date of hearing, in the circumstances of the case, is allowed, as prayed for, preponing the date of hearing from 1.2.2017 to today, i.e. 22.9.2016. CM stands disposed of.

6. Learned counsel for respondent Nos. 2 and 3 also filed CM No. 11887 of 2016, seeking permission to place on record documents in the form of Annexures R-2/1 to R-2/3, which also deserves to be allowed and the same is allowed, as prayed for. CM stands disposed of.

7. During the course of resumed hearing today, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 2 and 3, reiterated his earlier stand taken before this Court on 15.9.2016, contending that candidature of the petitioner was rejected, because he was not found eligible, for want of requisite amount of Rs. 15 lacs per distributorship, in his bank account, on the date when he submitted his applications for LPG distributorship in question. He further submits that it was a pre-condition for establishing eligibility of every candidate, however, the petitioner was not fulfilling this condition, therefore, his candidature was rightly rejected. He also submits that since the petitioner has misled this Court, by making false statement with a view to obtain favourable interim order, at the time of issuance of notice of motion, present writ petition is liable to be dismissed with exemplary costs.

8. When confronted with the abovesaid fact situation, learned counsel