HARJIT SINGH GONDARA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS judgment will dispose of C. W. P. No. 10103 of 1996 as well as C. W. P. No. 13088 of 1996.

(2.) BRIEFLY , the facts of the case are that Indian Oil Corporation issued an advertisement, which was published in the Daily Tribune dated October 5, 1994, inviting applications for selecting a dealer for a retail outlet at Badli Kalan, district Faridabad. One of the conditions of eligibility was that the income of the family as defined in the application form should not be more than Rs. 50,000.00 annually in the last financial year, i. e. 1993-94. Apart from other applicants, Harjit Singh Gondara, petitioner, in C. W. P. No. 10103 of 1996 and Ashok Kumar, petitioner in C. W. P. No. 13088 of 1996, were the applicants. The Oil Selection Board held interviews of the candidates on April 22, 1995. Harjit Singh Gondara was placed at No. 1, whereas Ashok Kumar was placed at No. 2 in the order of merit in the penal prepared by the Oil Selection Board. On May 5, 1995, Chief Divisional Manager, Indian Oil Corporation, Divisional Office Chandigarh, issued a letter of intent to Shri Harjit Singh Gondara that it was intended to offer the retail outlet dealership at Badli Kalan. He was asked to make arrangements for suitable plot of land of a particular dimensions and make all other arrangements regarding finance etc for operating retail dealership outlet within a period of four months and make all efforts to commission the retail outlet within a period of eight months of the date of the issue of the intent. It is the case of the petitioner that he spent huge sum of money and time for purchasing land for the retail outlet and getting non-incumberance certificate regarding the land and no objection certificate from the district authorities for installation of the retail outlet. A show cause notice was issued by the Oil Selection Board to Harjit Singh Gondara on August 21, 1995, that a complaint had been filed against him with documentary proof which showed that his annual income for 1993-94 exceeded Rs. 50,000.00 and asking him to show cause as to why his allotment be not cancelled. Petitioner Harjit Singh Gondara sent a reply on September 2, 1995 refuting the allegations and maintained that his income did not exceed Rs. 50,000.00 in the year 1993-94. Along with the reply he filed documents like Jamabandi of the year 1993-94 showing his land holding. Chakota agreement dated July 14, 1993, leasing out his land, Tehsildar's certificate dated August 31, 1995, showing the extent of his holding, application of one Chhaju Ram dated June 8, 1995, and Tehsildar's report thereon which had allegedly constituted evidence against the petitioner and another certificate of the Tehsildar regarding his income in the year 1993-94. On December 15, 1995, a personal hearing was also granted to Shri Gondara by the Oil Selection Board. On December 16, 1995, the Oil Selection Board issued any further document in support of his case as he may like to produce. He produced sale deed showing the purchase of land for petrol pump retail outlet, non-incumberance certificate and no objection certificate issued by the district authorities for running the outlet apart from an affidavit. On March 26, 1996, it is stated that petitioner Gondara made enquiries regarding the fate of his allotment and he was informed by the officers bf the Indian Oil Corporation that the Oil Selection Board had taken an adverse decision. He submitted an application for obtaining copy of the order of the Oil Selection Board. Again a reminder was sent demanding copy of the order but none was supplied. On April 20, 1996, petitioner Shri Gondara filed C. W. P. No. 5735 of 1996 praying that either respondent No. 3, i. e. , Indian Oil Corporation should implement the letter of allotment of the Petrol Pump outlet site and if the same has been cancelled, copy of the cancellation order be supplied to him. A written-statement was filed on behalf of Indian Oil Corporation in that case that it had not taken any action so far to cancel the allotment of the petitioner. Consequently, on May 16, 1996, the writ petition was dismissed as premature. On June 26/28, 1996, the Indian Oil Corporation issued a letter to petitioner Harjit Singh Gondara that since he had submitted untrue, incorrect and false information regarding his income in the application form and the declaration of annual income submitted along with it, the letter of intent dated May 5, 1995, stood withdrawn/cancelled with immediate effect. Copy of this order has been appended as Annexure P-19 in the writ petition filed by Shri Gondara. This order has been impugned by him in the writ petition.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner in Harjit Singh Gondara's case submitted that the impugned order of withdrawal/cancellation of intent issued by the Indian Oil Corporation dated June 26, 1996, copy Annexure P-19, is liable to be quashed as it gives no reasons. The Oil Selection Board gave no opportunity to the petitioner to rebut the evidence; the show-cause notice dated August 21, 1995, copy Annexure P/9 issued by the Oil Section Board gives no details on the basis of which the letter of intent was sought to be cancelled; the hearing had to be given by the Indian Oil Corporation and not by the Oil Section Board as it is the Indian Oil Corporation that had given the initial letter of intent which was sought to be cancelled. The complainant, Krishan Kumar, is no body else but the employer of Ashok Kumar, petitioner in the other case and it is he who had applied for the out-let in the name of the his employee, the respondents are estopped from cancelling the letter of intent inasmuch as the petitioner has spent a huge amount in acquiring land and other machinery etc. for the installation of petrol-pump.