Karnataka High Court
Sri Annappa S/O Basalingappa Hanagandi vs M/S Indian Oil Corporation Ltd on 21 April, 2022
Author: N.S. Sanjay Gowda
Bench: N.S. Sanjay Gowda
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF APRIL 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N.S. SANJAY GOWDA
WRIT PETITION NO.14441/2012 (GM-RES)
C/W. WRIT PETITION NO.64625/2012
IN W.P.NO.14441/12
BETWEEN:
SRI ANNAPPA S/O.BASALINGAPPA HANAGANDI,
AGE-44 YEARS, OCC-AGRICULTURE,
R/O.SASALATTI, TAL-JAMAKHANDI,
DIST-BAGALKOT.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI SRINAND A.PACHCHAPURE, ADVOCATE)
AND :
1. M/S. INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD.,
KHANAPUR ROAD, BELGAUM,
BY ITS SENIOR DIVISIONAL RETAIL SALES MANAGER,
BELGAUM.
2. THE DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER,
(RETAIL SALES), INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD.,
INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD.,
INDIAN OIL BHAVAN, NO.29,
KALINGRAO ROAD (MISSION ROAD),
BANGALORE, BANGALORE CITY.
3. THE UNION OF INDIA
BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVT. OF INDIA
MINISTRY OF PETROLEUM AND
NATURAL GAS, NEW DELHI.
:2:
4. THE TOWN MUNICIPAL COUNCIL,
TERDAL, TAL-JAMKHANDI, DIST-BAGALKOT,
REP.BY ITS CHIEF OFFICER,
BAGALKOT.
5. SRI SIDAGONDA MAHAVEER BABAGONDA,
AGE-29 YEARS, OCC-BUSINESS,
R/O.TERDAL VILLAGE, TAL-JAMAKHANDI,
DIST-BAGALKOT.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI RAMESH N.MISALE, ADV.FOR RESPONDENT NOS.1 AND 2)
(BY SRI M.B.KANAVI, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.3)
(BY SRI MAHANTESH R.PATIL, ADV. FOR RESPONDENT NO.4)
(BY SRI MOHAN A HIREKODI, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.5)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF
CERTIORARI SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER BEARING REFERENCE
NO.KASO/COMPL./SASALATTI DATED 04.04.2012 PASSED BY 2ND
RESPONDENT MARKED AT ANNEXURE-A, IN THE INTEREST OF
JUSTICE.
IN W.P.NO.64625/12
BETWEEN:
SRI ANNAPPA S/O. BASALINGAPPA HANAGANDI,
AGE-44 YEARS, OCC-AGRICULTURE,
R/O.SASALATTI, TAL-JAMAKHANDI,
DIST-BAGALKOT.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI SRINAND A.PACHCHAPURE, ADVOCATE)
:3:
AND :
1. M/S. INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD.,
KHANAPUR ROAD, BELGAUM,
BY ITS SENIOR DIVISIONAL RETAIL SALES MANAGER,
BELGAUM.
2. THE DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER,
(RETAIL SALES), INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD.,
INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD.,
INDIAN OIL BHAVAN, NO.29,
KALINGRAO ROAD (MISSION ROAD),
BANGALORE, BANGALORE CITY.
3. THE UNION OF INDIA
BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVT. OF INDIA
MINISTRY OF PETROLEUM AND
NATURAL GAS, NEW DELHI.
4. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
BAGALKOT.
5. KARNATAKA FIRE AND EMERGENCY SERVICES,
NO.1, ANNA SWAMY MUDALIAR ROAD,
BANGALORE-560 042.
6. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
BAGALKOT.
7. THE TAHASILDAR,
JAMAKHANDI, DIST-BAGALKOT.
8. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
PWD, BAGALKOT.
9. THE DISTRICT HEALTH OFFICER,
BAGALKOT.
10. THE PANCHAYAT DEVELOPMENT OFFICER,
GRAM PANCHAYAT, SASALATTI,
TAL-JAMAKHANDI, DIST-BAGALKOT.
:4:
11. SRI SIDAGONDA MAHAVEER BABAGONDA,
AGE-29 YEARS, OCC-BUSINESS,
R/O.TERDAL VILLAGE,
TAL-JAMAKHANDI,
DIST-BAGALKOT.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI C.V.ANGADI, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.1 AND 2)
(BY SRI M.B.KANAVI, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.3)
(BY SRI V.S.KALASURMATH, HCGP FOR RESP.NO.4, 6 TO 9)
(BY SRI SANTOSH NARAGUND, ADV. FOR RESPONDENT NO.10)
(BY SRI RAMCHANDRA A.MALI, ADV. FOR RESPONDENT NO.11)
(NOTICE TO RESPONDENT NO.5-SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF
CERTIORARI SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER BEARING LOI REF. NO.
2012/IN000156-KAR-00098-4302-00024 DATED 12.04.2012
PASSED BY 1ST RESPONDENT MARKED AT ANNEXURE-A, AND
GRANT ANY OTHER RELIEF AS DEEMED FIT IN THE INTEREST OF
JUSTICE.
THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 21.04.2022, COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
:5:
ORDER
On 27.05.2010, the Ind ian Oil Corporation (for short, 'IOCL') issued a notice for appointment of 'Kissan Seva Kendra' (Retail Outlet) dealer in resp ect of 332 locations stated therein. The objective of this notice was to ensure that Diesel, Petrol, Lubricating oils and other ag ro and non-agro p roducts are supplied to the customers at their doorsteps.
2. The notice p rescribed elig ibility criteria, disqualification criterion, and also a proced ure for evaluation of the cand id ates who have applied und er the notice. Under the said notice, certain other terms and cond itions were also notified . Clause 10 of the said notice related to General Terms and Cond itions, which stipulated that the applicants were req uired to fill their applications in a specified manner and it stated that the IOCL had also reserved its rig hts to cancel or withdraw or amend the notice at its sole discretion. It stated that there would be no addition, deletion or alteration to the application once it is submitted and no ad ditional :6: document would be accepted or considered after the cut- off d ate of the applications.
3. In response to the said notice, the petitioner as well as Sri Sid agonda Mahaveer Babagond a ('rival applicant' for short) submitted their respective applications in respect of the Sasalatti villag e (Sl.No.194) which was situated at Jamakhandi Taluka and Bagalkot District and was notified as an open category.
4. Both the p etitioner and the rival app licant submitted their applications within the stipulated date of 28.06.2010. On 30.06.2010, the app lications were scrutinized and evaluated by a committee called the Level-I committee comprising of the Manag er (RS), Belagavi DO, Manag er (CS) Belagavi DO and Deputy Manager (LPG) Belag avi AO.
5. Thereafter, on 16.08.2010 interviews were conducted by a committee comp romising of the Manager (RS) Mang aluru (DO), Dep uty Manag er (LPG) Gulb arg a and Manager (FM) Beng aluru (DO) which was called the Level-II committee. On evaluation and interview, it was :7: notified that the petitioner had secured 87.27% as ag ainst 80.78% secured by the rival applicant. As required und er the notification a merit p anel was also published on 16.08.2010. As p ermitted under Sub-clause
(n) of Clause 10 of the notice, the rival applicant lodg ed a complaint d ated 18.8.2010 stating that the petitioner had misrepresented to IOCL by stating that he was professionally qualified (MBA), when he had only passed S.S.L.C. and I.T.I. It was also alleged that the petitioner did not hold any land in Sasalatti Villag e as claimed.
6. On receipt of the complaint, a screening committee was formed by the General Manag er consisting of Senior Manag er (RS) KASO and Senior Manag er (LPG) KASO and the said two-member committee scrutinized the documents and concluded that the educational qualification certificates submitted by the petitioner did not appear to be proper and a further investig ation was necessary. However, in resp ect of the alleg ation reg arding the land, the two-memb er committee concluded that the documents relating to the land were p roper and the land was indeed situated in Sasalatti villag e. :8:
7. In view of the recommend ation for a further investigation regard ing the educational qualification, the General Manag er nominated the one R. Jayap rakash to conduct a full investig ation on the point raised by the screening committee. The Investigating Officer examined the matter relating to the ed ucational qualification of the petitioner and gave a find ing that the petitioner had claimed in his ap plication that he possessed S.S.L.C. and I.T.I. qualifications and he had not claimed that he was a hold er of an MBA deg ree.
8. The IOCL took note of the fact that the petitioner had enclosed a letter from Sri Sharad a Education Society, Banahatti, Bag alkot district, which merely stated that the petitioner had been admitted to the Bachelor of Eng ineering course and had written the examinations and therefore conclud ed that he could not be considered as having passed the Bachelor of Eng ineering . It was noticed that he had been awarded marks on the assumption that he had a Bachelor of Eng ineering qualification.
:9:
9. In resp ect of the alleg ation reg arding the land submitted by the petitioner, the Investig ating Officer also concluded that the land was situate within the designated villag e and therefore there was no truth in the alleg ation mad e by the rival applicant. The Investig ating Officer finally conclud ed that since the petitioner had not produced any proof of having p assed the MBA examination, the marks award ed to him on the ground that he had professional qualifications i.e., 15 marks was incorrect and the petitioner oug ht to have been given marks only for the S.S.L.C. educational qualification which he possessed and was entitled to only 10 marks. Thus, after investig ation, it was found that the excess 05 marks awarded had to be deducted from the marks notified in the merit p anel.
10. As per the prescrib ed policy, relating to the consid eration of comp laints, a re-evaluation of all the applications by the Level-I committee was arrang ed. Thereafter, the Level-I committee re-evaluated all the applications and come to the conclusion that even after deduction of the marks, the petitioner had still secured : 10 : the highest marks of 82.27% as ag ainst 80.68% of the rival applicant and therefore, a letter was sent to the rival applicant stating that the complaint was closed . Consequentially, a letter of intent dated 17.06.2011 also came to be issued in favour of the petitioner.
11. Three months thereafter on 16.09.2011, the rival app licant lodged one more complaint and requested for disqualification of the petitioner on the ground that he had given a false declaration. Acting on the said complaint, the Senior Manager LPG (S) (hereinafter referred to as the 2 n d investig ating officer) was ap pointed to examine the complaint.
12. The 2nd Investig ating Officer, after the investigation conclud ed that the 12 marks awarded on the assumption that the p etitioner was a hold er of a Bachelor of Science d eg ree could not b e sustained since the Bharatiya Shiksha Parishad, Lucknow (U.P.) had confirmed that the p etitioner had not comp leted the Bachelor of Science d egree from its institution and it was, therefore, necessary that the petitioner would have to be consid ered only as a hold er of an S.S.L.C. : 11 : certificate. He also noticed that the p etitioner had not claimed that he had a deg ree in his application but had nevertheless enclosed the marks sheet pertaining to the said course. It was also noticed that desp ite reducing 3 marks which had been granted on the assumption that he was a Bachelor of Science d egree holder, he continued to possess the hig hest numb er of marks. However, he stated that as p er the policy of IOCL, if any statement was found to be incorrect or false, the application was liable to be rejected and hence, he mad e a recommend ation for cancellation of the LOI issued to the petitioner.
13. The DGM concurred with the said recommend ation and this recommend ation of the DGM was also approved by the ED KASO. Conseq uently, a letter d ated 04.04.2012 vid e Annexure-A was ad dressed to the petitioner stating that the letter of intent dated 17.06.2011 stood withd rawn.
14. It is this withd rawal of the letter of intent which is the subject matter of Writ Petition No.14441/2012. Thereafter, IOCL proceed ed to issue a : 12 : letter of intent to the rival applicant by its communication dated 12.04.2012. The p etitioner has challenged this LOI issued in favour of the rival applicant by filing Writ Petition No.64625/2012.
15. Though extensive arguments were addressed reg arding the production of the Bachelor of Science degree marks sheet and the investig ation mad e regarding the ed ucational qualifications of the petitioner, in my view, these arg uments may have no bearing at all since in the ultimate analysis, the letter of intent issued to the petitioner was cancelled on the g round that he had attached marks sheets of deg ree, which was found to be not genuine and that amounted to the furnishing of information which was false. If this cancellation is held to be incorrect, then, the issue of the LOI to the rival applicant cannot be sustained.
16. At the very outset, it is to b e stated that it is an admitted fact that IOCL had issued a notice sp ecifying the terms and conditions for granting of a dealership which would govern the proced ure and manner in which the dealership would be granted.
: 13 :
17. Clause 10(n) of the said Terms and Cond itions of the Notice, which would be relevant for this writ petition, read s as follows:
(n) After the final interview the merit
panel will be displayed. Any grievances /
complaints can be submitted within a time
frame of 30 days from the d ate of display of merit p anel. No complaint will be entertained after the time frame of 30 d ays and Letter of Intent will be issued at the end of this 30 d ays period."
18. A reading of the notice indicates that after the evaluation of the applications, a merit p anel would b e prep ared and published and rival applicants who were agg rieved by the merit p anel were afforded an opportunity to submit their objections to the evaluation. As p er Clause 10(n) of the notice, the rival ap plicants were g ranted 30 days time to submit their grievances/comp laints. It was also mad e categorically clear that no complaint would be entertained after the said period of 30 days and the letter of intent would be issued to the successful applicants. Thus, fundamentally, any objection or grievance of a rival applicant would have : 14 : to be mad e within 30 d ays and if no objection was mad e, the letter of intent would automatically follow the person entitled as per the merit p anel.
19. Admitted ly, in the instant case, on the merit panel being pub lished on 16.08.2010, a complaint was lodged on 18.08.2010 by the rival app licant and immediately a screening committee was constituted to examine the complaint.
20. The complaint essentially was two-fold. Firstly, the p etitioner had misrepresented to the IOCL that he had comp leted his MBA course, though, he had not continued his ed ucation after his S.S.L.C. Secondly, he did not have any prop erty in the vicinity of Sasalatti villag e and the land shown by him was actually situate at Terad al which was touching the borderline of Sasalatti villag e.
21. An investig ation was conducted on this complaint reg ard ing educational qualifications and it was found that the petitioner had never claimed that he possessed an MBA d egree. Thus, the alleg ation of : 15 : misrepresentation, as alleged by the rival applicant, was found to b e incorrect. However, it was found by the committee that the petitioner had been g ranted marks on the assumption that he had completed the Bachelor of Eng ineering course, whereas, the information furnished by him along with the application merely stated that he had b een admitted to the Bachelor of Engineering course.
22. Thus, the screening committee d id not find the alleg ation reg ard ing misrepresentation of the educational qualifications to be true. In other words, the committee concluded that the petitioner had never stated that he was an MBA deg ree hold er and therefore the complaint was unsustainab le. However, it took note of a fact that was not alleged in the comp laint and it noticed that the assump tion that he was a holder of a deg ree in Bachelor of Engineering was incorrect and the award ing of marks on the said assumption was not sustainable.
23. The committee took note of the fact that the petitioner in his application in relation to his educational qualification had only stated that he possessed the qualification of S.S.L.C. and I.T.I. (Electrician). It, thus, : 16 : emerg es that the declaration given by the petitioner about his educational qualification, in his application, was that he only had an S.S.L.C. and I.T.I certificate. In his application, he had not even stated that he was the hold er of a Bachelor of Science d eg ree. However, despite the fact that the p etitioner had not claimed to be the hold er of any degree in his application, by reason of the documents that had been enclosed, the committee had granted him marks. In other words, the award of marks was not on the basis of the d eclaration but the evaluation of the documents submitted along with the app lication.
24. The committee, which examined the alleg ation in detail, ultimately concluded that there had b een no misrepresentation by the p etitioner regarding his educational qualifications, but there had b een a mistake in the awarding of marks and it was therefore decided that the complaint of the rival applicant was req uired to be closed with intimation to him.
25. It is to be stated here that the 2 n d alleg ation reg arding non-possession of land in Sasalatti village was : 17 : found to b e false and the p etitioner had in fact shown land which situated in Sasalatti villag e in his application.
26. Thus, in the terms of Clause 10 (n) of the Notice, an enquiry was ordered to be conducted in respect of the complaint made by the rival applicant within the 30-day period g ranted in the Notice. In the enquiry so cond ucted, the conclusion arrived at by the Committee was that there was no merit in the alleg ation relating to the educational qualification of the petitioner and the complaint was required to be closed with intimation to the rival applicant and as a consequence, a letter of intent was req uired to be issued in favour of the petitioner.
27. In view of the specific stipulation that only complaints received within 30 days of the merit p anel being published would be entertained, by the entertaining of a complaint by the rival app licant which was made within 30 d ays and concluding that there was no merit in the alleg ation, the matter ought to have stood concluded . : 18 :
28. However, the IOCL entertained a 2 n d comp laint which had been lodged on 16.09.2011 i.e., 3 months after the letter of intent was issued in favour of the petitioner on 17.06.2011 and 1 year 1 month after the merit p anel had been published on 16.8.2010. In my view, b y virtue of the specific emb argo of receiving a complaint after 30 days from the publication of the merit panel, the entertainment of the 2 n d comp laint was clearly ag ainst the terms of the notice and was therefore illegal.
29. If the terms of the notice calling for the application itself declared that IOCL would not entertain any complaint that was lodged after the time frame of 30 days fixed from the d ate of publication of the merit panel, it would be wholly impermissible for IOCL to have even entertained this 2 n d comp laint, let alone conduct an enquiry into the veracity of this complaint. On this score alone, the entire proceed ings that had b een initiated and which have culminated in the withd rawal of the LOI by the issuance of Annexure-A would have to be d eclared as a nullity and Annexure-A would have to be quashed . : 19 :
30. However, since elaborate arg uments were mad e reg arding misrepresentation and declaration of the education qualification of the petitioner it would be necessary to examine them also.
31. The petitioner in his app lication stated as follows reg ard ing his educational qualifications.
"1(f) Educational Qualification (s): (proof to be attached): S.S.L.C & I.T.I. (Electrician) Enclosed."
32. The p etitioner, therefore, did not claim in his application that he was either holder of an MBA degree or the holder of a Bachelor of Engineering d egree or a Bachelor of Science deg ree. In other word s, the petitioner had never rep resented to IOCL that he possessed a Degree, either in Science or Eng ineering , or had an MBA.
33. As p er the investig ation conducted, the petitioner had p roduced a document ind icating that he had been admitted to the Bachelor of Engineering course in Sharada Education Society. A read ing of the said letter ind icates that it stated that the petitioner had been : 20 : ad mitted and had also taken up the exams, but the results were yet to be announced. Thus, this letter also did not state that he was the holder of a BE deg ree. It is quite prob able that because of this reason the petitioner did not claim that he was the hold er of Bachelor of Eng ineering deg ree.
34. The petitioner also appears to have prod uced a statement of marks for the first year, second year, and final year for the Bachelor of Science deg ree. The said statement of marks had been issued by the Bharatiya Siksha Parishad , Lucknow (U.P.). Since marks were award ed to the petitioner on the b asis that he was a hold er of a BSc degree, even if it is assumed that the petitioner had submitted these documents, nevertheless, the fact remains that he had never claimed in his application that he was the holder of a Bachelor of Science deg ree. Thus, it cannot be stated that the petitioner had mad e out a rep resentation in his application that he possessed a Bachelor of Science degree and IOCL had assumed this on the b asis of the : 21 : documents that had been enclosed along with the application.
35. As stated above, the only qualification declared by the petitioner in his application was that he was having S.S.L.C and I.T.I. certificates, both of which were furnished . If the petitioner is to be non-suited on the ground of misrep resentation or making a false declaration, it would be necessary for the IOCL to estab lish that the petitioner had proclaimed to them that he was the hold er of a Bachelor of Science d egree or a Bachelor of Engineering deg ree. If this element of a declaration b eing mad e is ab sent in the application, the entire alleg ation of false declaration will have to fail.
36. It is to be borne in mind that the documents enclosed in the application were required to be scrutinized with reference to the declaration of the petitioner. If the petitioner in his application had stated that he was a holder of a Degree in Science, only then the documents that he had furnished relating to his Bachelor of Science was req uired to be scrutinized. If a declaration was not mad e that the petitioner possessed a : 22 : Deg ree, IOCL ought to have simply ig nored the documents.
37. As the p etitioner had clearly stated that he was a hold er of only S.S.L.C and I.T.I. certificates in his application, the IOCL could not have assumed that the petitioner had misrep resented or mad e a false d eclaration that he was the hold er of a Bachelor of Eng ineering degree or a Bachelor of Science on the b asis of the documents enclosed by him along with his application. Thus, assuming that the documents to the effect that he was a hold er of a Bachelor of Degree had been produced along with the application, having reg ard to the unequivocal d eclaration mad e b y the petitioner in his application reg arding his educational qualifications, IOCL could not have come to the conclusion that there had been a misrepresentation or furnishing of false information to enable it to exercise the power of cancellation.
38. It is to b e stated here that the document which is stated to have been furnished by the petitioner reg arding his Bachelor of Engineering deg ree itself stated : 23 : that the marks for the examination that the petitioner had taken up was yet to be received and it was therefore clear that the d ocument d id not state that he was the hold er of a Bachelor of Engineering.
39. Similarly, the statement of marks produced reg arding the Bachelor of Deg ree only indicated that the petitioner had p assed the first, the second and final year of Bachelor of Science. No degree certificate, as such, was p roduced nor was it stated by the p etitioner in the application or by way of any other document that he was the hold er of a Bachelor of Science d eg ree.
40. Thus, the documents, on which IOCL had assumed that the petitioner was the holder of a Degree either in Science or Engineering did not by themselves ind icate that he was indeed a holder of such Deg rees.
41. The entire controversy reg ard ing the possessing of Bachelor of Science degree came into being only b ecause of the 2 n d comp laint lodged by the rival applicant, which was on the b asis of a letter that he had received from Bharatiya Siksha Parishad , Lucknow to the : 24 : effect that the petitioner had not b een ad mitted to the said course.
42. The rival applicant has filed a memo, in which, he has p roduced the copy of a communication dated 12.09.2011 received by him from Bharatiya Siksha Parishad , Lucknow. The said letter indicates that the petitioner had not completed Bachelor of Science with enrolment No.0110026. It is also stated that as per their record they had not issued. He has also produced a letter add ressed to him from Sharad a Education Society dated 05.09.2011. The said letter states that the copy of the letter Pad bearing Sl.No.99 did not belong to the petitioner and it concerned somebody else and therefore the question of petitioner securing a Bachelor of Science degree or Bachelor of Eng ineering degree in Automobiles with reg istration No.0110026 from their institution does not arise.
43. To reiterate, the petitioner had not p roclaimed that he had either a B.Sc. degree or B.E. deg ree in his application and he had only stated that he had S.S.L.C. and I.T.I. qualifications. In the light of his declaration in : 25 : his application that he possessed only SSLC and ITI educational qualifications, on the basis of which he had been award ed marks and had secured the hig hest marks, the documents which he is stated to have furnished whether relating to his B.Sc. deg ree or B.E. deg ree would be of no consequence.
44. The IOCL on evaluation and a further re- evaluation has found that, even if, the marks that had been initially awarded on the assumption that the petitioner possessed a B.E. degree and the sub seq uent assump tion that he passed a B.Sc. degree were to be eschewed or ignored, nevertheless, the petitioner would still have the highest marks and would therefore b e entitled to b e selected. Thus, the entitlement of the petitioner on the b asis of the declaration mad e in the application entitles him to be g ranted a d ealership cannot be in doub t.
45. The understand ing of IOCL that the petitioner had furnished false information or false declaration would really have no legs to stand because even according to the IOCL, in the app lication sub mitted by the p etitioner, : 26 : he had only claimed that he had p assed S.S.L.C. and I.T.I. The affid avit relied upon by the IOCL for cancellation a letter of intent cannot also have any significance since essentially no declaration was ever mad e by the p etitioner in his application that he was a hold er of a B.Sc. deg ree or B.E. d egree.
46. The IOCL, by itself, d id not discover that the petitioner had knowingly furnished a false document. It is not the case of the IOCL that the petitioner was aware that Bharatiya Siksha Parishad was a non-existent institution and yet the petitioner had furnished documents and relied upon the same for securing the letter of intent. Since the documents stated to have been produced by the petitioner did not correspond to the declaration made by him reg arding educational qualification, the understand ing of IOCL that false information was given by the petitioner entitling it to withd raw the letter of intent cannot be accep ted.
47. It is clear from the above narration of events that the entire controversy essentially with the 2nd complaint was lodged by the rival applicant. As held : 27 : above, since the IOCL could not have even entertained the 2 n d complaint after the closure of the 1 s t complaint, any find ing arrived by it to cancel or withdraw the letter of intent cannot be sustained.
48. As already noticed above, the marks obtained by the p etitioner has b een calculated on the b asis of the declaration made by him in his educational qualification and it has b een found that he had secured the highest marks. Further, the petitioner has not declared or stated in his application that he was the hold er of either a B.Sc. degree or a B.E. degree. Therefore, the mere p resence of certain documents which according to the IOCL was doubtful cannot be a g round to withd raw a letter of intent. It will have to be borne in mind that possessing of a p rescrib ed educational qualification is not a prereq uisite for granting a d ealership and the possessing of higher educational q ualifications only increases the marks and thereby enhances the chances of securing a dealership .
49. In the ultimate analysis, in the present case, the p etitioner had not been award ed the dealership on : 28 : the b asis of the disputed ed ucational qualification and he was still entitled to be granted the d ealership even if the disputed educational q ualification was ignored.
50. At the conclusion of the arg uments, the rival applicant contended that the petitioner had in fact utilized the land shown b y him in his application for estab lishing a commercial comp lex and hence he was ineligib le to be granted the dealership. A few photog raphs were also prod uced. The petitioner responded to this assertion by filing an affid avit that the land as stated in his app lication was still very much availab le for running the retail outlet and he also produced a few photog raphs. It is stated that the petitioner has not changed the nature of the p roperty and he was using the office building that he had constructed for his personal use. It is also stated that a temporary structure had b een erected for storing food g rains and the said structure could be removed at any time. It is also stated that the photographs produced were in relation to some other p roperty of his. On perusal of the photog raphs and also in the light of the affid avit of the : 29 : petitioner that the land is still availab le and he has erected only a temporary structure which can be dismantled immediately, I am of the view that this arg ument of the rival applicant cannot be accepted .
51. Resultantly, the communication of the IOCL dated 04.04.2012 withdrawing the letter of intent issued to the petitioner cannot be sustained and the same is quashed. As a consequence, the letter of intent issued to the rival applicant on 12.04.2012 cannot also be sustained and the same is quashed.
52. The IOCL is directed to give effect to the letter of intent immediately.
53. Having reg ard to the fact that a letter of intent was also issued to the rival applicant and he claims to have made certain investments IOCL may also explore the feasib ility of accommod ating the rival app licant by allotting him a retail outlet on humanitarian g round if it is otherwise permissible.
54. Writ Petition No.14441/2012 is thus allo wed and the letter dated 04.04.2012 Annexure-A is q uashed. : 30 : Consequently, Writ Petition No.64625/2012 filed by the petitioner challenging the letter of intent g ranted to the rival applicant is allo wed and the letter d ated 12.04.2012 (Annexure-A) shall stand quashed.
55. The IOCL shall proceed to conclud e the grant of the retail outlet to the petitioner by comp leting all the formalities in that regard within a period of three months from tod ay.
Sd/-
JUDGE CKK