Dinesh Kumar Chaudhary vs Union Of India,Thru.Secy.To ...
2016 Latest Caselaw 2017 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 

Court No. - 1 							      A.F.R.
 

 
Case :- MISC. BENCH No. - 9029 of 2016
 

 
Petitioner :- Dinesh Kumar Chaudhary
 
Respondent :- Union Of India,Thru.Secy.To Govt.,Dept. Of P.&N.Gas & Ors.
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Chandra Bhushan Pandey,Abhinav Bhattacharya,Preeti Pandey
 
Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.,Manish Jauhari
 

 
Hon'ble Amreshwar Pratap Sahi,J.

Hon'ble Attau Rahman Masoodi,J.

Heard Sri C.B. Pandey learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Manish Jauhari for respondents no. 2 to 7 and Sri K.K. Pandey for the first respondent.

The petitioner has come up questioning the correctness of the order dated 23.3.2016 as well as the order dated 15.7.2015 passed by the respondent Oil Corporation  contending that the same proceeds on a completely erroneous assumption of the definition of the word 'mis-representation' inasmuch as the petitioner had placed all correct facts and he had not mis-represented any fact nor has he placed any fake document to get any benefit for the purpose of award of retail outlet dealership for petroleum produc8969ts at a particular site in district Siddharth Nagar, U.P.

The matter appears to have been examined by the respondent-Corporation on field verification and then the order dated 15.7.2015 was communicated to the petitioner cancelling the select empanelment where the petitioner had been placed at serial no. 1 on the ground that the petitioner had disclosed an incorrect status of his Bank account, which deviation was treated as a mis-representation, in order to enhance the merit of the petitioner. The petitioner aggrieved by such action had approached this Court and a writ petition was filed in which a direction was issued on 29th October 2015 calling upon the respondent-Corporation to consider the representation of the petitioner and pass a reasoned order. On such representation the impugned order dated 23.3.2016 has been passed.

Sri Pandey has vehemently urged that the Bank account status of the petitioner was perfectly in order indicating liquid assets possessed by the petitioner and as a matter of fact even the amount which was found on verification by the respondents and disclosed by the petitioner on the date of application was also meeting the requirements under the brochure, as such the respondent-Corporation ought to have reevaluated the status of the candidature of the petitioner and should not have rejected the same on the alleged ground of mis-representation. He contends that the documents which were filed were all genuine and the status of the bank account which existed on 16.11.2011 was appended along with the application form which was filed on 22.11.2011. He submits that the status of the account was not disclosed as on 22.11.2011 and, therefore, it did not amount to any mis-representation because the document was itself of 16.11.2011. He, therefore, contends that the claim of the respondents about any mis-representation of the status of the account of the petitioner is ill-founded and against the record. He also contends that even logically if the account status was disclosed as that on 16.11.2011, there was no occasion to construe that the petitioner had mis-represented his status of account on 22.11.2011 as the petitioner had not indicated the balance as on 22.11.2011.

He submits that even assuming for the sake of arguments that the correct status of account had not been disclosed as on the date of the application form, the same would not amount to concealment or mis-representation so as to disqualify the petitioner on the strength of such disclosure. The contention, therefore, is that the impugned order deserves to be quashed and the writ petition deserves to be allowed.

Learned counsel for the respondent contends that the disclosure as made by the petitioner, on field verification was not found to be correct in accordance with the norms prescribed, namely, that the date of the advertisement was 26.10.2011. The application was filed admittedly by the petitioner on 22.11.2011. The status of the account as reflected in the application was not in conformity with either of these two dates. Consequently the figure reflected as on 16.11.2011 was a wrong figure which could not be taken into consideration. It was a deviation which had resulted in incorrect empanelment of the petitioner. He submits that this incorrect information, even if allowed the petitioner to be interviewed, was subject to field verification as per the brochure that has been observed by Oil Corporation while rejecting the application and also canceling the candidature of the petitioner. He, therefore, submits that the impugned orders have been passed on a total correct assessment of the provisions applicable as also the status of the account as disclosed by the petitioner.

We have considered the submissions raised and we find on record that this is an admitted position that the petitioner had not disclosed the status of the account existing either as on the date of the advertisement or on the date of the application form. He had submitted the status of the account as existed on 16.11.2011 whereas on verification it was found that the amount that existed in the account as reflected by the petitioner was far less as on 22.11.2011. The amount reflected by the petitioner was Rs. 18,12,417/- as per the Bank statement account on 16.11.2011. The status of the Bank account of the petitioner on 22.11.2011 was admittedly Rs. 6,12,417.50 paise. This factual position could not be disputed by the petitioner but the argument is that this did not amount to mis-representation.

In our considered opinion the information tendered by the petitioner was an incorrect information as on the date of application and on the date of advertisement. The assessment and evaluation, therefore, proceeded on such incorrect information which led to the empanelment of the petitioner at serial no. 1.

The information about the status of the account may not have been reflected on account of any intention to deceit but the fact remains that the incorrect information resulted in a wrong empanelment on the strength of the marks that was awarded on the basis of the liquidity reflected by the petitioner which obviously was not of the correct date. Incorrect information about the status of the account on the relevant date was a fact that was a deviation and did not represent the desired information which resulted in an inference of mis-representation and howsoever bonafide the information remains but the effect thereof was mis-representation and disentitles the petitioner of being reconsidered for the purposes of evaluation of his merits. The fluctuation of availability of liquid money in a current account is obvious. The nature of the account would not govern the assessment but it is the availability of the fund in the account on the desired particular date, as discussed above, which has to be taken into consideration while drawing the comparative merit and awarding marks to the candidates. The entire process of assessment would therefore be jeopardized if such fluctuation is permitted.

Consequently, we are of the opinion that this incorrect information did result in an erroneous consideration and selection of the petitioner and his placement at serial no. 1. The conclusion drawn by the respondents while passing the order is correct. We do not find any merit in the writ petition.

Writ petition is accordingly rejected.

Order Date :- 28.4.2016

Om.

[Attau Rahman Masoodi, J.] [Amreshwar Pratap Sahi, J.]