Y CHANDRAIAH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule Nisi. Notice before admission was issued, counters have been filed and Counsels on both the sides have been heard at length. Both the petitions raise same questions of law and fact, therefore with the consent of the parties these petitions are disposed of at this stage.

(2.) A notification was issued by the respondent Corporation on 31/12/1997 calling for applications for selecting a dealer for the retail outlet of Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited at Aler, Nalgonda district. The petitioners in both the petitions submitted their applications offering their candidature. In terms of the notification, the candidates have to submit papers pertaining to their financial status, particulars of property standing in their name or in the name of their spouse and children. According to the petitioners, they gave the requisite documents along with the application. The third respondent after receiving the applications short listed the candidates and a list of three candidates was prepared. According to the petitioners, the names of the petitioners were in the list prepared by the respondents, along with them respondent No.4 was also there in the selected list. Both the petitioners were asked to appear before the Selection Board on 6/01/1999 at Taj Mahal Hotel, Secunderabad with the original documents, They attended and both of them contend that they were hopeful of being selected finally but were not selected and respondent No.4 was selected. The petitioners made representations complaining about the fact that the spot verification had been done only in case of respondent No.4 and not in case of the petitioners. They also represented that the spot verification should have been done for all the three candidates. They sought a fresh .enquiry to be conducted into the genuineness of the field particulars given by respondent No.4 as according to the petitioners respondent No.4 had given false information to the Corporation showing the Government land as his own land. It was also contended that respondent No.4 was not eligible to be selected because he had been convicted for an offence of smuggling of forest wood which had resulted in the case being compounded.

(3.) On the basis of these facts, the selection of respondent No.4 is challenged mainly on three grounds. One that the respondent No.4 had shown Government land as his own land and in fact he was not owning the land where he intended to start the depot. Secondly, that the respondent No.4 was an offender who had been charged under the Forest Act for smuggling of forest wood and he had paid a fine of Rs.93,000.00. Thirdly it is contended that spot verification had been made with regard to respondent No.4 alone and not for other candidates.