S MUNIYASAMY Vs. GOVERNMENT OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is an aspirant for getting LPG dealership from Bharat Petroleum Corporation under the Rajiv Gandhi Gramin LPG Vitrak scheme. When the publication was advertised in the Dinakaran newspaper, dated 31.03.2010, Madurai edition seeking for application for LPG dealership, he also made an application claiming that he is the resident of Karivalamvandanallur Village in Sankarankovil Taluk, Tirunelveli District. The said village out let was exclusively for persons belongs to Schedule Caste community. The notification itself gave certain requirements for making applications. One such requirement was that the land which has to be shown for the purpose of putting up godown should be available in the same revenue village.

(2.) The petitioner made an application giving the particulars of his land owned by him, which was situated in Kuvalaikanni Panchayat. In the final list of applications found eligible who were are qualified for short-list of selection under the Rajiv Gandhi Gramin LPG Vitrak scheme in respect of the LPG Out let, name of the petitioner also finds a place. It was described the selection is for the Karivalamvandanallur Village under SC category.

(3.) The petitioner also went for the selection process and marks were awarded by the Committee comprising of Territory Manager and Territory Coordinator. He received telegram from the third respondent asking him to contact the Territory Manager, Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd, Tuticorin. Since the respondent found that the petitioner's original land shown in the application did not come within the revenue village of Karivalamvandanallur Village, he was informed that there was discrepancy between the original settlement deed dated 28.04.2010 and the Encumbrance Certificate obtained by the committee showed that the lands offered were in Karivalamvandanallur situated in Kuvalaikanni Village. Therefore, it is stated that as per the notification that the land for construction of godown should be in the advertised location. In the application he has made a declaration that he was aware that any information furnished if found to be false or misrepresented, his application was liable to be cancelled. It was at this stage, the petitioner after getting the cancellation order dated 28.06.2011, came forward to challenge the said order.