GULSHAN CHUG Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both the writ petitions are connected and are being disposed of by a common order. The petitioner in CWP No.5163 of 2012, who was ranked as number one as eligible for allotment of distributorship of LPG gas through a merit list prepared on 23.12.2009 was later served with a letter of cancellation on the ground that the petitioner was guilty of misrepresentation of the facts towards capability to provide infrastructure.

(2.) The petitioner would contend that the allusion to alleged misrepresentation was to the property offered by him for installing a suitable godown. The requirement as set out in the brochure is brought through Clause 9 which is reproduced as under:-

(3.) The petitioner would contend that along with his application, he had furnished a lease deed drawn in his favour by the owner of the property and an affidavit given by him with reference to an adjoining property of a larger extent of 2 kanals 14 marlas. The Corporation purported to cancel the allotment on the basis of a letter of refusal from the District Town Planner, Panipat to issue a NOC for construction of a godown at the place shown by the petitioner as available at his command. In that letter dated 26.07.2010, the District Town Planer had indicated that the property which was shown by the petitioner was brought under the provisions of the Punjab Scheduled Roads and Controlled Area Restriction of Unregulated Development Act, 1963 (1963 Act) and that the cut off date for any construction which could be made upon the property was 04.01.2010. The counsel would argue that this was pursuant to a notification which was made on 03.01.2009 and at the relevant time when the application was filed, there was no such restriction. The counsel would also argue that for any reason, the construction cannot be made and the adjoining property was still a property which was offered by the owner and it must be taken to be subject to a firm commitment from the land owner to purchase/lease the land in favour of the petitioner. The counsel would contend that the cancellation which was made even without notice to the petitioner on alleged ground of misrepresentation was wrong and untenable, for, there exists no misrepresentation.