ASHOK KUMAR SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The challenge herein is to the validity of the impugned order dated 23.1.2002 whereby the selection of the petitioner (empanelled candidate No. 1) for retailed outlet at Atraulia in District Azamgarh has been cancelled on a complaint made by the respondent Smt. P. Pandey. The operative part of the Impugned order has been annexed as Annexure-17 to the writ petition whereas the entire order passed by the Dealer Selection Board (in short 'D.S.B.') has been filed along with Civil Misc. Amendment Application dated 25.2.2002 which was allowed vide order dated 16.3,2002.

(2.) It is not disputed that the location at Atraulia in District Azamgarh was advertised for retail outlet dealership of B.P.C.L. for the open category candidates. One of the essential conditions of eligibility, as per office memorandum No. 39012/1/1999-I.O.C., Government of India, Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gases, Shastri Bhavan, New Delhi dated 9th October, 2000, a copy of which has been annexed as Annexure-4 to the writ petition, was that, "Residents of the district in which location is advertised will only be eligible". According to the self same office memorandum, residence certificates should be issued within six months of the date of advertisement by the Revenue Officer not below the rank of Tahsildar or Deputy Tahsildar, in-charge of the area or the Commissioner of Police/Deputy Commissioner of Police. In support of his/her being a resident of that district, such certificate was required to be produced as a proof of residence for all categories of candidates. Another eligibility requirement was that the gross income of candidate should not exceed Rs. 2 lacs per annum in the previous financial year. The income for this purpose, as stipulated in Section 1.2.71 of the office memorandum aforestated, "will include that of self, spouse and dependent children" and if the candidate is dependent on parents, then their income will also be taken into consideration for computing total Income. It was further provided therein that any ex-gratia income or any such one time lump-sum income which not being of recurring nature would not be considered for the purpose of computing the gross income limit by the Office Memorandum aforestated.

(3.) The petitioner as well as respondent No. 5 and a third person were selected for allotment of dealership of retail outlet at Atraulia in district Azamgarh. The petitioner was selected as empanelled candidate No. 1 while the 5th respondent as empanelled candidate No. 2. It appears that after publication of the result, the 5th respondent made a complaint dated 18.5.2001 to the Dealer Selection Board, Lucknow-IV questioning the selection of the petitioner alleging therein that he happened to be the resident of Lucknow but for the purpose of getting the dealership, he submitted two residence certificates : one in proof of being resident of district Azamgarh and other in proof of being the resident of district Mau. It was accordingly, alleged in the complaint that one person cannot be resident of two districts at a time. The petitioner, it was alleged, with a view to getting retail outlet dealership at Atraulia in district Azamgarh and another location in district Mau had fraudulently obtained residence certificates from two districts one from Azamgarh and other from Mau. In the circumstances, therefore, it was prayed that the selection of the petitioner be cancelled. It would appear that the 5th respondent, Smt. P. Pandey filed a writ petition being Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 2700 (M/B) of 2001, Smt. Pratima Pandey v. Ministry of Petroleum and Ors., which came to be disposed of vide order dated 14.6.2001 by the Vacation Judge of the Lucknow Bench with the direction to the petitioner therein to file a comprehensive objection along with certified copy of the writ petition before the Dealer Selection Board, Lucknow on or before 30.6.2001 with the command superadded that if comprehensive objection along with the certified copy of the order was filed before the concerned authority, the same would be disposed of by a reasoned order preferably within six weeks exercising unfettered discretion without being influenced by any observation made by the Court in its judgment dated 14.6.2001.