INDIAN OIL CORPORATION Vs. ARUN MASSEY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this judgment I dispose of two Regular Second Appeals Nos. 1064 and 1531 of 1996 as both the appeals have arisen from the judgment and decree dated 6. 2. 1996 passed by the Court of Additional District Judge, Chandigarh, who affirmed the judgment and decree dated 23. 2. 1994 passed by the Court of Sub-Judge, 1st Class. Chandigarh.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case leading to the institution of suit by Arun Messey, plaintiff-respondent No. 1, were that he along with defendants Sukhdarshan Singh and Smt. Kavita Jain applied for the allotment of L. P. G. Distribution at Kharar. There were several other applicants, but the plaintiff and the defendants named above were invited by defendant Nos. 1 and 2, i. e. , Indian Oil Corporation and the Oil Selection Board, respectively, for the allotment of distributorship after scrutiny of applications. After coming to know that the name of the plaintiff was on the panel, the defendants Sukhdarshan Singh and Smt. Kavita Jain (defendants Nos. 3 and 4, respectively started making false complaints against him. Although the Area Manager of the defendant-Corporation found the complaints to be false, yet defendant No. 3 Smt. Kavita Jain managed to come on the panel at No. 1, whereas previously the plaintiff was at No. 1 When the plaintiff came to know that defendant No. 3 was about to be appointed as distributor, he filed the suit, but during the pendency of the suit the distributorship was allotted to defendant No. 3, ignoring the fact that the plaintiff was the only suitable candidate and defendants Nos. 3 and 4 were not eligible to be so appointed as they had made false statements/declarations. Defendant No. 4 Sukhdarshan Singh Bath was earning about Rs. 50,000/- per annum and was also having 4-1/2 acres of land from which he was getting additional income, but he did not disclose this fact and, therefore, his distributorship was liable to be cancelled.

(3.) SEPARATE written statement was filed by defendants Nos. 1 and 2 and they pleaded that no legal right of the plaintiff has been infringed. The names of the plaintiff and defendants Nos. 3 and 4 were incorporated in the alphabetical order and final selection was made by the Oil Selection Board after the receipt of the Field Investigation Report. It was admitted by these defendants that although the plaintiff fulfilled the eligible criteria but he had no right to claim dealership over and above the other eligible candidates.