MAHESH KOPPERA Vs. INDIAN OIL CORPORATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is filed for a mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in cancelling the dealership awarded to the petitioner for Mothe retail outlet at Karimnagar District vide proceedings Ref. No. SDO/KSK/Mothe, dated 20.10.2011 of respondent No. 2 as illegal and arbitrary. In response to the notification issued by the respondents, the petitioner applied for appointment as a retail outlet dealer of Kisan Seva Kendra, Mothe, Karimnagar District. After the interviews were held on 24.6.2011, the petitioner, along with 26 others, was short-listed at the selection. The petitioner was placed at Sl. No. 1 of the merit list. Following the field inspection, the Senior Divisional Retail Sales Manager of the respondents-Corporation issued the impugned proceeding whereby he has cancelled the selection of the petitioner as the retail outlet dealer. Feeling aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed this writ petition.

(2.) A perusal of the impugned proceeding shows that the first of the two grounds on which the cancellation of the dealership was made was that the petitioner has filed bank statement dated 10.7.2010 along with his application dated 22.7.2010 showing a balance of Rs. 15,06,000/- in his savings bank account, but the field verification revealed that as on the date of the petitioner's application i.e., 22.7.2010, his bank balance in the savings account was only Rs. 1,55,458/-. It is stated in the impugned order that the petitioner has withdrawn substantial amounts from his savings bank account between 10.7.2010 and 22.7.2010 and thereby misrepresented to the respondents by showing the bank balance as Rs. 15,06,000/-. The second ground mentioned in the impugned order is that the petitioner failed to produce the original pattadar passbook in respect of the land offered by him for establishment of the retail outlet and that according to the petitioner the same is with the Deccan Grameena Bank in connection with availing of crap loan.

(3.) A detailed counter-affidavit has been filed wherein the above mentioned grounds contained in the impugned order have been reiterated. It is further alleged that the petitioner has deliberately misrepresented the facts and therefore his selection was cancelled in terms of clause 17 of the guidelines of the Corporation.