RAKESH KUMAR TYAGI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Respondent No.3, namely., Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited had issued public notice/advertisement on 18th April, 1995 inviting application for retail outlet/ dealership of petrol pump. Terms and conditions, for allotment of retail outlet dealership, as stipulated in the advertisement were as under: "(a) None of the close relatives viz. Spouse/father/mother/son/daughter/ sister/brother-in-law/daughter-in-law/parents- in-law held dealership/distributorship of any oil company for any petroleum product in India.(b) The applicant or any of his above mentioned relations had earlier not been issued a letter of intent/appointment for any dealership or agency by any oil company in India for any petroleum product.(c) The gross income of the applicant and his spouse and children put together does not exceed Rs. 50,000/- p.a.(d) No charge has been framed against the applicant nor any court has ever convicted him for any criminal case involving moral turpitude and for any economic offence nor any such proceedings are pending against the applicant.(e) The applicant should be the permanent resident of Delhi and for which a residence certificate signed by a Revenue Officer not below the rank of Tehsildar or Deputy Tehsildar stating that the applicant has been a resident of the District for a period not less than 5 years immediately preceding the date of application.

(2.) Pursuant thereto on 15th May, 1995 the petitioner submitted his application for allotment of retail outlet. Other including the respondent No.4, also applied. It is a matter of common knowledge that the Oil Selection Boards are constituted for selection of the applicants for allotment of such retail outlets. Respondent No.2/ Oil Selection Board (Delhi) [for short 'the Board'] interviewed the applicants and recommended the name of respondent No.4. On this recommendation, respondent No.3 issued Letter of Intent (hereinafter referred to as "LOI') on 16th February, 1996 in favour of respondent No.4 offering him retail outlet dealership at Dehil- North West, Delhi or any other location thereabout where the site is being made available by the land owning authorities. Terms and conditions on which this LOI was issued, were also contained therein. One of such terms contained in para 2.8 stipulated that the LOI would stand automatically withdrawn and cancelled on happening of certain events mentioned therein and para (b) stipulated the following event:

(3.) The petitioner in this writ petition has challenged allotment in favour of respondent No.4 on the ground that respondent No.4 was not eligible to be considered as he was hot fulfilling two of the eligibility conditions, namely (a) respondent No.4 had wrongly disclosed his annual income as Rs.36,000/- whereas it was more than Rs.50,000/- and the document produced by him in support of his annual income was false, (b) He was not permanent resident of Delhi and was in fact resident of Chandigarh and he had submitted false certificate in this behalf as well.