Allahabad High Court
Tauleshwar Prasad vs Indian Oil Corporation Limited & 2 ... on 13 August, 2014
Bench: Amreshwar Pratap Sahi, Vivek Kumar Birla
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 21
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 42170 of 2014
Petitioner :- Tauleshwar Prasad
Respondent :- Indian Oil Corporation Limited & 2 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Tripathi B.G. Bhai,Navin Sinha
Counsel for Respondent :- Sanjiv Singh,V.P. Mishra
Hon'ble Amreshwar Pratap Sahi,J.
Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Birla,J.
Heard Sri Navin Sinha learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, Sri Sanjiv Singh for the Indian Oil Corporation and Sri Vivek Prakash Mishra for the caveator.
Supplementary affidavit filed today, is taken on record.
The challenge in this writ petition is to the fundamental objection raised by the respondent in the impugned order dated 1.7.2014 relating to deficiency in the eligibility conditions prescribed under the brochure for allotment of a L.P.G. distributorship by the Indian Oil Corporation.
The objection to the candidature of the petitioner is two fold, firstly that the petitioner did not have the requisite fund of Rs. 4 lacs as the closing balance on the last date for submission of application as specified in the advertisement. The second ground taken is that the land which was offered by the petitioner, even in the alternative, did not have an approach road as such the same was not found suitable.
According to Clause 6-g in the Brochure the following requirement is necessary:-
"6-g. Have minimum total amount of Rs. 4 lakhs as the closing balance on the last date for submission of application as specified in the advertisement or corrigendum (if any), put together from Saving accounts in Bank, free and un-encumbered fixed deposits is scheduled banks, Kisan Vikas Patra, NSC, bonds, any other investment, etc in the name of self or family members of the 'Family Unit' as defined in Multiple dealership/distributorship norm who pledge in writing such assets in favour of applicant."
A perusal thereof leaves no room for doubt that the application form has to disclose the balance in the bank account and the said amount should exist as on the last date of the application form. In the instant case, it is undisputed that as on the last date the amount which was disclosed by the petitioner in the application form was deposited, but was less than Rs. 4 lacs as on the last date of application.
Sri Sinha submits that the petitioner had to establish his liquidity and therefore he was in possession of a term deposit receipt of Rs. 85,000/- to supplement such shortfall as on the last date of the application form.
It is however undisputed that the said term deposit receipt was not disclosed in the application form nor was tendered with the application form. Consequently, the respondents have gone strictly by the aforesaid Clause 6-g and this Court cannot in the exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India bend the rules so as to find any fault with the impugned decision.
Consequently, the reasons recorded in the impugned order dated 1.7.2014 cannot be faulted with. The writ petition lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed.
Order Date :- 13.8.2014
Lalit Shukla
