Back
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J
DEEPTHI .P – Appellant
Versus
HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD – Respondent
WP(C)/378/2010
Disqualification - LPG Distributorship - Income Tax Affidavit Compliance - The court discussed the necessity of supporting documents for income claims in distributor applications, interpreting relevant clauses in the application brochure and the lack of necessity for income tax returns for non-assessees, ultimately allowing the petitioner's claim for distribution.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner was disqualified from LPG distributorship despite being ranked first due to the alleged failure to submit required income tax returns, which she contended was unnecessary, having provided an affidavit as per application guidelines.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the relevant clauses regarding income documentation were complied with by the petitioner through an affidavit, and the requirement for income tax returns was not applicable since she and her husband were not assessees at the time of application.
Issues: The main issue was whether the failure to submit income tax returns resulted in the disqualification of the petitioner despite presenting an affidavit outlining the necessary income details.
Ratio Decidendi: The court determined that income tax returns were not required from non-assessees as per the application guidelines, ruling that the petitioner submitted sufficient evidence for her income claim through an affidavit.
Final Decision: The court quashed the disqualification orders and directed the allotment of LPG distributorship to the petitioner.
JUDGMENT
The petitioner challenges Ext.P15, whereby she is disqualified for candidature for LPG Distributorship. This is the fourth round of litigation as far as the issue involved is concerned.
2. The petitioner was ranked first in the assessment of eligibility for allotment of LPG Distributor ship by the first respondent at Kuttiadi in Kozhikode District in open category (women). Ext.P1 is the copy of the application submitted by the petitioner. Forty applicants were interviewed by the Dealer Selection Board and the petitioner secured 99 marks out of 100 and thus was ranked first. Ext.P2 is the copy of the statement of marks awarded to the candidates. The petitioner is serial No.35 in Ext.P2. In Ext.P2 the marks awarded under different heads are shown and we are mainly concerned with the marks awarded under the heading “capacity to provide finance” where she was granted a total of 35 marks under different components. A copy of the brochure has been produced as Ext.P3. Under the sub heading “income” 5 marks are allowable. The dispute herein is with regard to the allotment of the above 5 marks under the sub-heading wpc 378/2010 2 “income”.
3. The petitioner had furnished various details of the income as per the affidavit Ext.P4 dated 21.1.2008. The affidavit was filed in the prescribed format showing her total income for the assessment year 2007- 2008 as Rs.2,47,763/- and that of her husband as Rs.2,78,340/-. A field inspection was conducted by the officers of the Company on 22.9.2008 and the originals of the documents were verified. They inspected the proposed godown site and the show room site also and all those were found to be satisfactory. The petitioner had produced documentary evidence in the form of Fixed Deposit receipts and other documents to show that she holds bank deposits of Rs.24,32,289/- and a saving bank balance of Rs.3,25,416/-. She proved her possession and ownership over 50 cents of land also.
4. It is the case of the petitioner that after two weeks of the field inspection the third respondent contacted the petitioner telephonically and asked her to produce income tax return for the year 2007-2008 in respect of the details given in Ext.P4 affidavit. Thereafter, the petitioner furnished income tax returns after submitting the same, even though it was not necessary as per clause 14.1 of Ext.P5, as the said clause only provides for notarised affidavit declaring annual income.
wpc 378/2010 3
5. Ultimately as no action was being taken, the petitioner filed W.P.
(C) No.7424/2009 seeking for various reliefs. In the said writ petition, learned counsel for the respondents made a submission that the petitioner was disqualified and the writ petition was disposed of as per Ext.P6 judgment directing the second respondent to issue a notice detailing the grounds on which the petitioner is sought to be disqualified. But without issuing a notice, Ext.P7 was furnished as an order which was challenged in W.P.(C) No.12290/2009. This Court directed Ext.P7 to be treated as a notice and directed the petitioner to file objection in the matter and Ext.P8 is the copy of the judgment. Ext.P9 is the reply given by the petitioner and a hearing was also offered. Later, an order was passed as per Ext.P10 by the Deputy General manager, LPG (SZ) even though the hearing was conducted by the Zonal Manager - LPG. This was challenged by the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.20398/2009 which was allowed as per Ext.P14 and this Court directed the Senior Regional Manager to hear the petitioner and pass appropriate orders. Ext.P15 is the order now passed by the Senior Regional Manager.
6. Heard Shri K.R.B. Kaimal, learned Senior Counsel and Shri Kaleeswaram Raj for the petitioner and Shri E.K. Nandakumar, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents.
wpc 378/2010 4
7. Shri K.R.B. Kaimal, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the approach made by the respondents in Ext.P15 is patently incorrect and illegal. The petitioner is sou
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
