DINESH KUMAR CHAUDHARY Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri C.B. Pandey learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Manish Jauhari for respondents no. 2 to 7 and Sri K.K. Pandey for the first respondent.

(2.) The petitioner has come up questioning the correctness of the order dated 23.3.2016 as well as the order dated 15.7.2015 passed by the respondent Oil Corporation contending that the same proceeds on a completely erroneous assumption of the definition of the word 'mis -representation' inasmuch as the petitioner had placed all correct facts and he had not mis - represented any fact nor has he placed any fake document to get any benefit for the purpose of award of retail outlet dealership for petroleum produc8969ts at a particular site in district Siddharth Nagar, U.P.

(3.) The matter appears to have been examined by the respondent -Corporation on field verification and then the order dated 15.7.2015 was communicated to the petitioner cancelling the select empanelment where the petitioner had been placed at serial no. 1 on the ground that the petitioner had disclosed an incorrect status of his Bank account, which deviation was treated as a mis - representation, in order to enhance the merit of the petitioner. The petitioner aggrieved by such action had approached this Court and a writ petition was filed in which a direction was issued on 29th October 2015 calling upon the respondent -Corporation to consider the representation of the petitioner and pass a reasoned order. On such representation the impugned order dated 23.3.2016 has been passed.