AURANGJEB KHAN Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aurangjeb Khan is before this Court assailing the validity of the order dated 26.2.2015 passed by the Chief Regional Manager respondent no. 3 wherein petitioner has been informed that his candidature in question has been rejected on account of wrong declaration of fact.

(2.) Brief facts giving rise to the present controversy are that an advertisement was published on 8th Sept., 2013 in newspaper 'Dainik Jagran' for allotment of L.P.G. Distributorship under Rajiv Ghandhi Rural L.P.G. Distribution Scheme. Petitioner applied in response to the aforesaid advertisement for grant of L.P.G. Distributorship. As per clause-12 of the advertisement petitioner had to furnish a detail in respect of the fact that as to whether he has been convicted by a criminal court in the cases involving moral turpitude or any charge has been framed by the Court against him. If answer is yes, then he should be treated to be disqualified for the purpose of grant of L.P.G. Distributorship. Petitioner was also required to file an affidavit mentioning therein as to whether he has been convicted in a criminal case involving moral turpitude or economic offence and the charge has been framed against him involving moral turpitude or economic offence. In the application form, petitioner has mentioned "No" against the requirement to be furnished by him. The requirement was that if at all, the candidate has been convicted in a criminal case by the court in respect of moral turpitude, or the charge of economic offence has been framed by the Court. After verifying the application form, the Chief Regional Manager has rejected the claim of the petitioner by order dated 26.2015 by saying that the charge-sheet under Sec. 3, 4, 6, 7 of the Prevention of Immoral Traffic Act, 1956 has been taken cognizance of by the court and therefore, petitioner has furnished false information and hence his claim is treated to be rejected and the security deposit made by the petitioner is also forfeited accordingly.

(3.) Petitioner at this stage came to this Court wherein response in question has been filed on behalf of the Hindustan Petroleum Corporation. Counter affidavit has also been filed on behalf of Akhilesh Kumar Singh in whose favour subsequent allotment in question has been made. Rejoinder has been filed and thereafter the present matter is being taken up for final hearing and disposal.