SAMYA CHAUDHARY Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved by order dated 30.5.2013, whereby the petitioner was informed by the Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited (for short "BPCL") that upon field verification, the information furnished by her in the application for LPG distributorship was found to be at variance and, therefore, her candidature is being rejected, has filed the instant writ petition for quashing the aforesaid order and for commanding BPCL to offer the LPG distributorship in question to the petitioner.

(2.) During pendency of the writ petition, the petitioner came to know that BPCL is proceeding to hold re-draw for selection of LPG distributorship from amongst the remaining eligible candidates and the aforesaid action was also subjected to challenge by filing an amendment application, which was allowed. Yet another amendment was sought challenging the order dated 21.6.2013 whereby the representations made by the petitioner vide her letters dated 7.6.2013 and 17.6.2013 were rejected. The said amendment was also duly allowed by order dated 24.7.2013.

(3.) The facts in brief giving rise to the instant petition are that the petitioner had applied for LPG distributorship at Naubasta, Kanpur under SC Category pursuant to the advertisement dated 22.10.2011. The Territory Manager, LPG, BPCL, Lucknow informed the petitioner that there are certain shortcomings in the affidavits submitted by her and she was required to remove the defects by 8.2.2013. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner claims to have submitted a fresh affidavit, and thereafter by letter dated 28.2.2013 sent by Territory Manager, LPG, Lucknow she was informed that she has qualified for the draw of selection of LPG distributorship to be held on 21.3.2013 and she may remain personally present on that date. According to the petitioner, she was successful in the draw of lots and thereafter field verification was carried out to ascertain her credentials and to verify the information submitted by her in the application. At the time of field verification, it was noticed that in the registered lease-deed of the land, which was offered by her for construction of godown, by inadvertence, in place of Plot No. 1040, Plot No. 1050 has been mentioned. On coming to know of the said typographical error, she immediately got the registered lease rectified by getting a registered titimma executed on 8.5.2013 in which it was mentioned that in the original lease deed, in place of plot no. 1050, the correct plot no. 1040 be read. The further case of the petitioner is that she immediately intimated the BPCL vide her letter dated 9.5.2013 that the mistake in the registered lease deed has been corrected by substituting plot No. 1040 in place of plot no. 1050. According to the petitioner, no further discrepancy was found in the field verification. However, she was taken aback on receipt of the impugned order dated 30.5.2013 whereby her candidature has been rejected. The relevant portion of the aforesaid letter containing two grounds is reproduced below: