ORDER

Date : 24-09-2021 The matter is taken up through video conferencing.

Heard Mr. S. Borthakur, learned counsel for the appellants.

This writ appeal has been filed by the appellants being aggrieved by some of the findings of the learned Single Judge recorded in the order dated

05.02.2021 passed in WP(C) No.8440/2018.

The writ petition was filed by the private respondent, who was one of the candidates shortlisted for allotment of LPG distributorship. Though the learned Single Judge did not interfere with the rejection of the candidature of the respondent/writ petitioner for allotment of LPG distributorship, but so far as withholding of 10% of the security amount which was Rs.30,000/- deposited by the respondent/writ petitioner, an interference was made and it was directed that this amount be returned to the respondent/writ petitioner. The appellants are only aggrieved by that portion of the order of the learned Single Judge by which the amount of Rs.30,000/- has been directed to be returned to the respondent/writ petitioner. The appellants while withholding the security amount of Rs.30,000/- has relied upon the Guideline No.26 of the Unified Guidelines for Selection of LPG Distributors, which reads as under:

“26. FURNISHING OF FALSE INORMATION

a. If any statement made by the applicant in the application or in the documents enclosed therewith or subsequently submitted in pursuance of the application at any stage is found to have been suppressed/ misrepresented/ incorrect or false affecting eligibility, then the application/candidature is liable to be rejected without assigning any reason.

b. In case the selection of the candidate is rejected after the FVC or after issuance of LOI but before issue of Letter of Appointment, then the amount deposited by the selected candidate before the FVC is conducted i.e., 10% of the applicable security deposit will be forfeited.

c. In case the selected candidate has been appointed as a distributor and the allotment is liable to be cancelled, then the distributorship will be terminated along with forfeiture of security deposit remitted by the candidate.

d. In all the above cases, the selected candidate/ distributor will have no claim whatsoever against the respective PSU Oil Marketing Company.”.

The case of the appellants is that a candidature can be rejected at any stage, but if it has been rejected after field verification is done, then in order to recover the cost of field verification, 10% of the security deposit has to be withheld. Under this provision, the amount has been withheld. However, the learned Single Judge was of the opinion that there was no wilful default or concealment by the petitioner. The only case of the appellants was that they wanted a registered sale deed, whereas in the case of the petitioner it was a notarised deed and not a registered deed. The learned Single Judge came to the conclusion in Paragraph 12 of the order and the same reads as under:

“12. The impugned letter dated 17.11.2018 had also mentioned that in view of rejection of the candidature of the petitioner due to non-fulfilment of eligibility criteria in respect of the proposed plot of land offered for LPG distributorship, the amount of Rs. 30,000/- deposited with the respondent HPCL stood forfeited in terms and conditions in the advertisement. Sub-clause (b) of Clause 26 has mentioned that in case the selection of the candidate is rejected after the FVC or after the issuance of LoI but before the issue of Letter of Appointment, then the amount deposited by the selected candidate before the FVC i.e. 10% of the applicable security deposit would be forfeited. As per Clause 26 (a), the candidature of an applicant is liable for rejection at any stage without assigning any reason if the application or in the documents enclosed therewith or subsequently submitted in pursuance of the application the applicant is found to have suppressed or misrepresented anything or incorrectly or falsely stating something. There is no disp