IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Rohit Arya, J.
Banwari Baghel v. Union of India and others
Writ Petition No.4707 of 2014 (Gwalior); Decided on 2.9.2016.
Held : In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that candidature of respondent No.4 was liable to be rejected on the ground of furnishing false information as provided for in clause 16 of the brochure (Anneuxre P-12), as well as, for the reason that the FVC has acted unfairly and its decision is influenced by extraneous considerations contrary to the conditions stipulated in various clauses of the brochure, referred to above. 2007(II) MPWN 65 (SC) followed. 2013(3) MPLJ 466 relied on. 2006 AIR SCW 5834 referred to.
Hkkjr dk lafo/kku && vuq-226 && jktho xk¡/kh xzkeh.k nzO; isVªksfy;e xSl forj.k ;kstuk ds v/khu ,y ih th forj.kdrkZ ds vf/kfu.kZ; ds fy, vkgj.k dk vfHk[kaM+u pkgus gsrq ;kfpdk && foKkiu esa mfYyf[kr ik=rk dh 'krsZ izR;FkhZx.k }kjk tkjh dh xbZ && izR;FkhZ Ø-4 dh vH;fFkZrk feF;k lwpuk nsus rFkk rF; lR;kiu lfefr }kjk vuqfpr :Ik ls dk;Z djus ds dkj.k [kkfjt fd, tkus ;ksX; gS rFkk 'krksZ ds izfrdwy gS && izR;FkhZ Ø-4 dk p;u rFkk vk'k;&i= vfHk[kfM+r && izR;FkhZ Ø-2 rFkk 3 dks ik= vH;fFkZ;ksa dk u;k ykWV vkgj.k djus ds fy, funsf'kr fd;k tkrk gS && ;kfpdk eatwjA
vfHkfu/kkZfjr % iwoZdfFkr rF;ksa rFkk ifjfLFkfr;ksa dks ns[krs gq, bl U;k;ky; dh lqfopkfjr jk; gS fd izR;Fkh Ø-4 dh vH;fFkZrk feF;k lwpuk nsus ds vk/kkj ij [kkfjt fd, tkus ;ksX; gSA foojf.kdk ¼vuqyXu ih&12½ ds [kaM 16 esa ;Fkk micaf/krA blds lkFk&lkFk bl dkj.k Hkh fd rF; LkR;kiu lfefr us vuqfpr :i ls dk;Z fd;k gS rFkk bldk fofu'p;u Åij fufnZ"V foojf.kdk ds fofHkUu [kaMks esa vuqc) 'krksZ ds izfrdwy vlac) fopkjks ls izHkkfor gSA 2007¼2½ e-iz- ohDyh uksV~l 65 ¼mPpre U;k-½ vuqlfjrA 2013 ¼3½ ,e ih ,y ts 466 voyafcrA 2006 , vkb vkj ,l lh MCY;w 5834 fufnZ"VA
1. This petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is at the instance of one of the candidates who had applied for award of LPG Distributorship under Rajeev Gandhi Rural LPG Distribution Scheme, pursuant to the advertisement (Annexure P-1) published in the newspaper dated 21.5.2012 for Village Magroni, Tahsil Narpur, District Shivpuri, seeking quashment of the Draw held on 28.1.2014 in favour of respondent No.4 as she, according to the petitioner, is ineligible candidate and for further direction to respondents No.1 to 3 to conduct fresh Draw for award of LPG Distributorship.
2. Amongst other eligibility conditions mentioned in the advertisment (Annexure P-1), the applicant is required to qualify Xth Board examination or its equivalent; the applicant should have the land of his/her ownership at the location of distributorship as specified in the advertisement of area admeasuring 20 meters x 24 meters; the said land should be plain, levelled and accessible, besides no live over head power transmission or telephone line should run over it and no pipeline/rivulet/gutter or Nala should pass through such plot/land; the application should be submitted in good hand-writing or in typed form and after submission of the application, neither there should be any addition, deletion nor any change therein.
3. According to the petitioner, respondent No.4 has made false declaration that she has land of her ownership at Village Magroni. Besides, the land offered by husband of respondent No.4 during FVC visit was not of his exclusive ownership. It is un-diverted land and over the said land, overhead power line passes through, as is apparent from the photographs (Annexure P-9). It is submitted that Nala passes through the said land under a culvert, as is apparent from photocopy of certified copy of the report issued by the Office of Tahsildar (Annexure P-14). Besides, it is submitted that respondent no.4 has further made false declaration in her application form that she has qualified Xth Board examination in the year 1988-1989 and that she has annunal income of Rs.4,000,00/- (Rupees four lacs). It is submitted that as against Column No.9 of the application form, respondent no.4 has given false and misleading statement as regards the location of land falling in Khasra Nos.277/11/4 and 277/11/12 admeasuring 0.38 hectare and 0.02 hectare at Village Magroni, Narwariya Road, whereas, as per the records, the same is situated at Vllage Panghata, Gram Panchayat Quaday. It is submitted that in view of the aforesaid facts, respondent no.4 was ineligible to apply for LPG Distributorship pursuant to the advertisement. It appears that petitioner had preferred Writ Petition No.1484/14 with the aforesaid grievance and this Court, while disposing of the said writ petition, vide order dated 26.3.2014 (Annexure P-4), has observed as under:
“Accordingly, this petition is disposed of by reserving liberty to the petitioner to prefer representation/objection against Annexure P-2 before respondents No.2 and 3 along with copy of this order. In turn, respondents No.2 and 3 are directed to deal with the said objection in accordance with law expeditiously, preferably within 45 days”
4. Petitioner states that he filed a representation on 30.3.2014 (Annexure P-5). The same is disposed of by Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. On 9.5.2014. It is admitted in the reply that the land offered by respondent No.4 is not at Village Magroni, but in Village Panghata and is against the rules. It is further mentioned therein that however, the same is not of much relevance, as according to the policy of the Petroleum Corporation, if the applicant or any of his family member holds any land of his/her ownership on the date of advertisement or before that date, and the same is suitable for Godown purposes, the same can be accepted on verification thereof. As Mukesh Jain, husband of respondent No.4 and a family member, has a plot of his ownership acquired by him vide register
SupremeToday
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
A valid signature must be in the candidate's own handwriting, as emphasized by the General Clauses Act and relevant case law.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.