Rajasthan High Court
Manisha D/O Iliyash Kha vs Government Of Rajasthan on 21 February, 2022
Bench: Sameer Jain
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 27559/2018
Manisha D/o Iliyash Kha, aged about 22 Years, R/o V.P.O.
Guwalda, Tehsil Tijara, District- Alwar, Rajasthan-301707
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Government Of Rajasthan, through the Chief Secretary,
Jaipur
2. Territory Manager(LPG) Jaipur, Bharat Petroleum
Corporation Limited, Jaipur
3. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited, Bharat Bhavan, 4
and 6, Currimbhoy Road, Ballard Estate, Mumbai 400001
4. Narendra Kumar S/o Samay Singh, aged about 37 Years,
R/o Chaupanki Udyogik Shetra, Chaupanki, Tijara, Alwar,
Rajasthan
5. Hemant Kumar, aged about 47 Years, C/o Haryana Bharat
Gas Agency, Opposite DMG Mall, Rewari, Haryana
6. Smt. Ritu Goyal W/o Shri Anil Goyal, aged about 45
years, R/o Kundan Villa, Ganj Road, Kishangarhbas,
District Alwar
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Tanveer Ahamad, through VC
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Jai Prakash Gupta, through VC
Mr. R.K. Mathur, Sr. Adv. through VC
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN
Judgment
Judgment Reserved on 01/02/2022
Judgment Pronounced on 21/02/2022
1. Learned counsel for the petitioner has invoked provisions of
Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the withdrawal of
letter of intent in terms of advertisement dated 23.08.2017 for
(D.B. SAW/780/2019 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders)
(2 of 5) [CW-27559/2018]
LPG distributorship by respondent No.3 i.e. Bharat Petroleum
Corporation Limited (for short 'BPCL').
2. On 23.07.2017 an advertisement was issued by respondent
No.3 for LPG distributorship across Rajasthan. The petitioner
herein, possessing all the requisite eligibility and qualifications,
applied for the same originally under the open category
distributorship. On 22.02.2018, the respondents sent a letter to
the petitioner with reference to their intention to offer the
petitioner LPG distributorship at Guwalda, District Alwar along with
required conditions that were to be duly followed by the
petitioners in order to get LPG distributorship.
3. Vide letter dated 03.08.2018 show cause notice was issued
to the petitioner for breach of LPG distributorship, selection
guidelines and conditions of LOI on account of a complaint
wherein it was alleged that a fake NOC dated 25.01.2018 was
applied and submitted by the petitioner in the name of Baroda
Rajasthan Kshetriya Gramin Bank, Tapukara pertaining to godown
land. In the light of the complaint and Field Verification of
Credential (FVC), it was revealed that the letter dated 25.01.2018
was neither issued by the Bank nor was issued on the authorized
letter-head, and the stamp used on the letter did not belong to
their Bank and that the said letter was not genuine hence, there
was misrepresentation and fraud committed.
4. In terms of the said show cause notice, vide Annexure-9 it
was admitted by the petitioner that she has taken aid and help of
close family friend/relative who had replaced the Bank certificate
on account of the fact that the close friend was also having LPG
distributorship. She is a rural lady and educated only upto 12 th
class and there was no intention to commit any
(D.B. SAW/780/2019 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders)
(3 of 5) [CW-27559/2018]
fraud/misrepresentation as she already had one certificate of Bank
dated 04.01.2018 which was original and the same was replaced
by the family friend who was helping her in the said application.
5. Vide impugned order dated 16.11.2018, after consideration
of the reply of the petitioner and FVC, relying upon Clause 26 of
the Unified Guidelines and on account of the fact that the NOC
submitted by her was found to be fake and she had knowingly
submitted a false document during the conduct of FVC,
respondent No. 3 withdrew the LOI dated 22.02.2018. The
justification given by her was not found to be satisfactory by
Respondent No. 3 as, if the document dated 04.01.2018 was
available with her at the time of FVC, she would not have had
signed the document dated 25.01.2018 knowing it to be forged
and not genuine. She also failed to give any explanation as to
why she did not initiate any action against the alleged family
friend regarding such misrepresentation against her own will.
Further, at the time when FVC was being conducted, she did not
possess letter dated 04.01.2018 and was very aware of the fact
that the document submitted by her is not genuine. The plea of
her being less educated and a rural lady, was not accepted by
Respondent No. 3 as the education upto class 12 th is sufficient
enough to understand that she was submitting a fake document
during FVC.
6. It is in this background that the present petition is filed by
the petitioner praying to set-aside and quash the order dated
16.11.2018 and to consider her candidature for LPG
distributorship on the ground that she is in possession of all the
requisite eligibility and has even made an investment by way of
godown and she should not be held at any disadvantage due to
(D.B. SAW/780/2019 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders)
(4 of 5) [CW-27559/2018]
her lack of knowledge on account of connivance of her family
friend, who has inimical relation with her.
7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submitted
that letter of withdrawal is self speaking, the terms and
conditions of LOI have expressly made it clear that in case of any
mistake, fraud/misrepresentation, the application will be rejected.
No new document i.e. on 04.01.2018 can be considered at the
stage of stay application and they are bound by terms and
conditions and no estoppel is created. They further submitted that
the matter involves factual disputes which cannot be gone into
while entertaining the writ petition under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India.
8. This Court considered the arguments advanced by the
respective advocates. This Court also considered records of the
case and judgments cited at Bar.
9. On consideration of the same, this Court is of the opinion
that clause 26 of the unified guidelines for selection of LPG and
distributorship specifically states that if at any stage it is found
that something is incorrect, false or misrepresented for any
reason, the respondents will be at liberty to cancel the
distributorship/terminate the same and forfeit the security amount
without assigning any reason. It is also categorically specified by
way of impugned order in question that to show the bonafide, no
criminal complaint, at that particular time, was brought on record
before the respondents in terms of FIR or any other claim against
the said relative alleged to have committed replacement of
documents. Further the alleged letter in question dated
04.01.2018 issued by Bank cannot be considered by the
respondents at a belated stage.
(D.B. SAW/780/2019 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders)
(5 of 5) [CW-27559/2018]
10. It is settled position of law as held by Supreme Court in
Sanjay Kumar Jha Vs. Prakash Chandra Chaudhary & Ors.
reported in (2019) 2 SCC 499 that in Government grants,
largesse, public property and public premises, scope of
interference by High Court and consideration of factual questions,
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is impermissible.
11. In the light of above, the writ petition is dismissed.
12. All pending applications stand disposed of in above terms.
(SAMEER JAIN),J
Arun/55
(D.B. SAW/780/2019 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
