Patna High Court
M/S Gauri Shankar Indance Service ... vs That State Of Bihar on 7 May, 2025
Author: A. Abhishek Reddy
Bench: A. Abhishek Reddy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.13003 of 2024
======================================================
M/s Gauri Shankar Indance Service Kuchaikote, District-Gopalganj through
its Proprietor Ravi Pandey, Male, aged about 39 years, S/o Late Gauri
Shankar Pandey, r/o Flat No. 201, Sindhu Nilay Apartment, Yaduvansh Path,
Nageshwar Colony, P.S.-Buddha Colony, District-Patna.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. That State of Bihar through the Additional Director General of Police,
Economic Offence Unit Home Dept Bihar, Patna.
2. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. through the Executive Director (ED) Bihar State
Office, Lok Nayak Jai Prakash Bhawan, 5th Floor, Dak Bunglow Chowk,
Frazer Road, Patna.
3. The General Manager I/C (LPG) Indian Oil Corporation, Bihar State Office,
Lok Nayak Jai Prakash Bhawan, 5th Floor, Dak Bunglow Chowk, Frazer
Road, Patna-800001, P.s.-Kotwali, District-Patna.
4. The Dy. General Manager (LPG), Area Office, Patna under Bihar State
Office, Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., Sahi Bhawan, Exhibition Road, P.S.
Kotwali, Patna.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Abhinav Srivastava, Adv.
For EOU : Mr. VNP Sinha, Sr. Adv.
: Mr. Vijay Anand, Adv.
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Dhurjathi Kr. Pd. Government Pleader 14
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. ABHISHEK REDDY
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 07-05-2025
Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
The present writ petition has been filed for the following
relief(s):-
"(i) Issuance of a direction, order
or writ, including writ in the nature of
certiorari quashing the letter dated 07/03/2024
issued by the Executive Director and State
Head, Bihar State Office, Indian Oil
Corporation Limited, Bihar, Patna (hereinafter
referred to as "IOCL"), by which the
representation submitted by the petitioner with
Patna High Court CWJC No.13003 of 2024 dt.07-05-2025
2/11
a request for recalling the termination of the
petitioner distributorship has been rejected;
(ii) Issuance of a direction, order
or writ, including writ in the nature of
mandamus commanding the concerned
respondent authorities under IOCL to consider
the case of the petitioner for restoration of the
distributorship of Indane Gas Unit in its favour
taking note of the fact that on the basis of the
report submitted by the Forensic Science
Laboratory, Bihar, Patna, it has transpired, in
effect, that that there was a balance of Rs.
20,40,000/- in the concerned bank account on
the basis of which the distributorship of LPG
was allotted in favour of the petitioner and it
was on account of subsequent forgery having
been committed by persons with vested
interests that the said amount was sought to be
tampered with;
(iii) Issuance of a declaration
holding that the petitioner is entitled for
consideration of its case for restoration of the
LPG distributorship in its favour in light of the
new developments that have taken place
clearly demonstrating that during the relevant
time, there was sufficient money in the bank
account of the applicant on the basis of which
the distributorship in question had been
awarded;
(iv) Any other relief/reliefs that the
petitioner may be found to be entitled to in the
facts and circumstances of the present case."
3. The brief facts which are necessary for disposing the
present writ petition are that the respondent-Corporation had
published an advertisement seeking applications from the eligible
candidates for appointment of LPG Distributorship. That the father
of the petitioner has applied under the freedom fighters quota and
after due formalities, the father of the petitioner was informed that
he has been selected for the distributorship. That on 30.10.2008,
Patna High Court CWJC No.13003 of 2024 dt.07-05-2025
3/11
the father of the petitioner deposited a security amount of Rs.
20,40,000/-. Thereafter, the father of the petitioner was passed
away on 31.10.2008. That based on the application made by the
petitioner seeking appointment as a distributor which was allotted
in the name of his father, the authorities granted permission to the
petitioner in place of application of his late father. As per the
guidelines for transferring the Letter of Intent (LOI) to the legal
heir. Thereafter, the petitioner has been allotted the distributorship
and after due verification of the amounts deposited by the father of
the petitioner in Siwan Central Cooperative Bank Limited, the
authorities have issued the LOI in favour of the petitioner. That as
per the terms and conditions of the LOI, the agreement initially
would be for a period of five years and could be renewed for a
further period of five years based on the Corporation satisfaction.
The agreement between the petitioner and the respondent-
Corporation was entered. That after the initial period of five years
was over, the distributorship was again renewed for a further
period of five years. That based on a complaint made by a former
employee named Rajesh Pandey, the respondent-Corporation have
issued the show cause notice to the petitioner wherein it was
alleged that the father of the petitioner had submitted a fabricated
bank statement and that the bank statement evidencing an amount
Patna High Court CWJC No.13003 of 2024 dt.07-05-2025
4/11
of Rs. 20,40,000/- was not correct. Though the petitioner has
approached this Hon'ble Court by way of CWJC seeking to quash
the show cause notice, the same was disposed of directing the
petitioner to submit his reply. That the petitioner has sent a
detailed letter to the IOCL with the necessary material. Thereafter,
the respondents terminated the contract of the petitioner with effect
from 30.12.2019. The petitioner challenged the said termination
vide CWJC No. 559 of 2020, however, the said CWJC was
dismissed on 22.05.2020. Thereafter based on the material which
was obtained by the petitioner under Right to Information Act, the
petitioner had filed a Civil Review No. 79 of 2020 seeking review
of the judgment passed in CWJC No. 559 of 2020 dated
22.05.2020
. However, this Hon'ble Court dismissed the Civil
Review No. 79 of 2020 on 22.09.2021. Thereafter, the petitioner
has filed an LPA before this Hon'ble Court which was numbered
as LPA No. 625 of 2021 challenging the original judgment dated
22.05.2020 passed in CWJC No. 559 of 2020. However, the LPA
also stood dismissed by order dated 02.08.2022. Though, Civil
Review was filed by the petitioner seeking review of the judgment
passed in LPA No. 625 of 2021, the same stood dismissed.
Thereafter, the petitioner has filed an SLP (Civil) No. 8336 of
2023 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court but the same was also
Patna High Court CWJC No.13003 of 2024 dt.07-05-2025
dismissed. Thereafter, the petitioner has filed a formal complaint
before the Special Vigilance Department of the State and an FIR
was registered based on the petitioner's complaint and numbered
as FIR No. 483 of 2023. That the ledger which was connected to
the petitioner's Bank Account was sent to the Forensic Science
Laboratory, Patna for examination and an expert report was
submitted wherein it has been confirmed that the ledger showed an
amount of Rs. 20,40,000/- and there was some tampering done.
4. Further, it is stated in the report that a paper was
pasted over the details in one of the columns to tamper of the
record. Though the petitioner has submitted a detailed
representation before the authorities explaining the above
tampering of the record and also said that there was substantial
evidence to show that an amount of Rs. 20,40,000/- was deposited
by the father of the petitioner and the same was verified by the
authorities themselves before issuance of the LOI, the authorities
have rejected the representation made by the petitioner on
07.03.2024. Aggrieved by the said rejection order dated
07.03.2024, the present writ petition has been filed.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently
argued that the order of rejection passed by the authority on
07.03.2024 was without any application of mind and contrary to
Patna High Court CWJC No.13003 of 2024 dt.07-05-2025
the material that was available on record. That in spite of there
being ample evidence to show that there was a tampering done in
the Bank ledger and even as per the forensic report, it was evident
that an amount of Rs. 20,40,000/- was deposited by the father of
the petitioner, the authorities did not take the same into
consideration and passed the order of rejection. Learned counsel
has prayed that the rejection order dated 07.03.2024 passed
without taking the new material on record is fresh cause of action
and therefore, the earlier orders which were passed by this Hon'ble
Court are not binding and will not operate as res judicata. Learned
counsel has stated that in view of the subsequent events that have
taken place, the present CWJC is maintainable. Learned counsel
has relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of Mathura Prasad Bajoo Jaiswal and Ors. Vs. Dossibai
N.B. Jeejeebhoy reported in 1970(1) SCC 613.
6. Per contra, the learned Senior Counsel Dr. K.N.
Singh assisted by Mr. Sant Kumar Mishra, Adv. appearing on
behalf of the respondent-Corporation has vehemently opposed the
very maintainability of the present writ petition. Learned counsel
has stated that the petitioner having failed to get any favourable
orders in the earlier rounds of litigation, has come up with this new
writ petition based on a false cause of action. That the alleged
Patna High Court CWJC No.13003 of 2024 dt.07-05-2025
cause of action projected by the petitioner is concocted for the
purpose of this case. That the forensic report and the rejection
order dated 07.03.2024 cannot be the basis for filing the present
CWJC, more particularly in view of the earlier orders passed by
this Court. That this Hon'ble Court duly taking into consideration
the pleadings, the evidence and also calling for the original
documents from the Bank has dismissed the case of the petitioner
holding that the father of the petitioner has not deposited an
amount of Rs. 20,40,000/- as claimed. Learned counsel has stated
that the cause of action as alleged by the petitioner is only figment
of imagination and merely because the FSL report is obtained, the
same cannot be a basis for considering the case of the petitioner.
Learned counsel has stated that the order of termination passed by
the authorities has become final as the petitioner has lost all the
way up to the Supreme Court and, therefore, the present writ
petition is not maintainable. Learned counsel has therefore, prayed
this Hon'ble Court to dismiss the present writ petition.
7. Admittedly as seen seen from the record, the
petitioner in the earlier round of litigation has approached this
Court by way of CWJC, LPA and thereafter, the Hon'ble Supreme
Court by challenging the order of termination without any success.
This Hon'ble Court after taking into consideration the various
Patna High Court CWJC No.13003 of 2024 dt.07-05-2025
material available on record and also calling for original record
from the Bank has dismissed the case of the petitioner. Though it
is strenuously contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner
that the report of the FSL, Patna goes to show that there was some
tampering done by some mischief monger and that there was an
amount of Rs. 20,40,000/- to the credit of the account. It is to be
noted that this Hon'ble Court while deciding the LPA No. 625 of
2021 has called for the original records from the Bank and after
due verification of the same has held as under;
"In order to find out the truth, this Court
called for original records and ledgers with respect to
account of appellant/petitioner as maintained in the
Bank and pursuant to which, the Branch Manager
appeared and produced following documents:-
1. Deposit Voucher (Challan dated
11.02.2009 to 20.02.2009).
2. Ravi Pandey File (Photo Copy of
Document).
3. Daily Scroll Register (Dt. 24.12.2008 to
06.03.2009).
4. SBI Cheque issued Register.
5. Customer Signature Spacemen Card
(A/c 14101 to 14150).
6. A/c Opening Register.
7.Savings Account Ledger Book No. 88.
All these documents were made available
for perusal of not only all the learned counsel but also
the petitioner/appellant who was present in Court.
The opening account register reveals that
account No.14111 was opened on 11.02.2009 having
Ledger Folio 88 / 224 in which Rs.50,000/- was
deposited. Daily Scroll Register reveals that in
account no.14111, on 11.02.2009 Rs.50,000/- on
12.02.2009, Rs.50,000/- and on 14.02.2009
Rs.50,000/- and Rs.40,000/- were deposited in the said
account.
Patna High Court CWJC No.13003 of 2024 dt.07-05-2025
From customer deposit voucher, in account
No.14111, on 11.02.2009 Rs.50,000/-, on 12.02.2009
Rs.50,000/- , on 13.02.2009, Rs.50,000/- and on
14.02.2009, Rs. 50,000/- and Rs.40,000/- were
deposited.
On 07.04.2009 by Cheque No.019577,
Rs.2,39,500/- was withdrawn by appellant/petitioner
and thereafter, there has been no transaction from said
account.
In the saving account ledger Book No.88,
at page no.224, half of the said page has been covered
by pasting a blank ledger page, as such, entry made on
such page is not visible and on the next page ,i.e.,
page no.225, name of appellant/petitioner and his
account no.14111 with details of transaction, as
referred above, is entered in which, on 14.02.2009,
total balance in the account is Rs.2,40,000/- (Two lacs
forty thousand) which indicates connivance of the
bank officials facilitating appellant / petitioner in
preparing forged and manipulated documents, on
basis of which, appellant/petitioner misrepresented the
IOCL and was placed at Sr. No.1 of the merit list.
On scrutiny and perusal of original
documents and deposits made maintained under the
different heads and ledgers, it is conclusively
established that appellant/petitioner had deposited
Rs.50,000/- as cash on 11.02.2009, 12.02.2009,
13.02.2009, 14.02.2009 and further Rs.40,000/- as
cash on same day, i.e., 14.02.2009 and, as such, on
14.02.2009, the balance amount was Rs.2,40,000/- but
by playing fraud, a certificate dated 14.02.2009 and
certificate dated 09.03.2009 and passbook dated
14.02.2009 were manufactured/ created by the
appellant/petitioner in perhaps collusion with the bank
officials. Bank officials always made an effort that this
forgery is never unearthed and when this Court asked
to produce original documents, same was not
produced on the pretext that original documents were
misplaced , however, when the court asked the
Chairman and Managing Director to produce the
original documents or face the consequences, same
were produced before this Court, which shows that
bank officials were fully aware of the forgery
committed by the appellant/petitioner and made every
effort to cover said forgery."
Patna High Court CWJC No.13003 of 2024 dt.07-05-2025
8. It is pertinent to note that this finding of fact has
become final and confirmed all the way up to the Hon'ble
Supreme Court therefore, the contention of the petitioner that the
FSL report subsequently obtained by the petitioner has to be taken
into consideration for the purpose of restoring the distributorship
for the petitioner is not correct. The FSL report cannot be the basis
for reconsidering the case of the petitioner.
9. This Court in an unequivocal manner after due
verification of the relevant records has held that the claim of the
petitioner that his father had deposited an amount of Rs.
20,40,000/- is false one and rejected his claim. This finding of fact
has become final and binding on the petitioner. The earlier
judgments will operate as res judicata and the CWJC is liable to
dismissed on this ground. The Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of Mathura Prasad Bajoo Jaiswal and Ors. Vs.
Dossibai N.B. Jeejeebhoy reported in 1970(1) SCC 613 relied by
the petitioner is of no help as the same is distinguishable from the
facts of the present case.
10. Having regard to the same, this Court does not find
any merit in the present writ petition which warrants any
interference by this Court, more particularly, in view of the earlier
orders passed by this Court rejecting the claim of the petitioner
Patna High Court CWJC No.13003 of 2024 dt.07-05-2025
which have attained finality and confirmed up to the Hon'ble
Supreme Court.
11. With the above direction, the present writ petition
stands dismissed.
(A. Abhishek Reddy, J)
Ayush/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 15.05.2025.
Transmission Date NA
