Karnataka High Court
Mrs N Janhavi W/O Mr Bhagath Reddy vs Union Of India on 7 September, 2018
Author: R Devdas
Bench: R Devdas
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2018
BEFORE
THE HON' BLE MR.JUSTICE R DEVDAS
WRIT PETITION NO.35149 OF 2010 (GM-RES)
BETWEEN
MRS N. JANHAVI
W/O MR. BHAGATH REDDY
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS
R/AT NO 431/H
1ST ' B' MAIN, 1ST ' B' CROSS
8TH BLOCK, KORAMANGALA
BANGALORE-560 095.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI. M. G. S. KAMAL, ADVOCATE )
AND
1. UNION OF INDIA
MINISTRY OF PETROLEUM AND NATURAL GAS
NEW DELHI
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.
2. INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED
WITH ITS REGD OFFICE AT
G9, ALI YAVAR JUNG MARG
BANDRA (EAST)
MUMBAI 400 051
REPRESENTED BY ITS
DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER (LPG).
2
ALSO AT:
INDIAN OIL BHAVAN
NO.29, P.KALINGA RAO ROAD
(MISSION ROAD)
BANGALORE 560 027.
3. MR. RAVISHANKAR R
S/O RAMACHANDRA REDDY
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS
RESIDING AT HALANAYAKANAHALLI VILLAGE
CARMELRAM POST, VARTHUR HOBLI
BANGALORE 560 035.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. C RAMAKRISHNA, ADVOCATE FOR R1,
SRI. B.K. SRIDHAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2,
SRI. AJAY KUMAR PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R3)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS
PERTAINING TO THE ALLOTMENT OF LPG DISTRIBUTORSHIP
IN RESPECT OF SARJAPUR ROAD, BANGALORE URBAN IN
THE OPEN CATEGORY AND AFTER VERIFYING THE
PROPRIETY OR OTHERWISE OF THE SAME SET ASIDE THE
ALLOTMENT OF LPG DISTRIBUTORSHIP MADE BY THE
RESPONDENT NO.2 IN FAVOUR OF RESPONDENT NO.3 AND
ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
3
ORDER
R DEVDAS J., (ORAL):
The petitioner was one of the applicant for allotment of LPG distributorship in respect of Sarjapur road, Bengaluru Urban, Bengaluru. The petitioner has called in question the allotment of distributorship made by the 2nd respondent - Indian Oil Corporation Limited ('IOC' for short) in favour of the 3rd respondent - Sri Ravishankar.R.
2. Sri M. G. S. Kamal, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Clause 14 of the broacher on selection of distributors provides for evaluation parameters, which are as follows:
"14.1. Evaluation Parameters for LPG distributorships"
Max Marks Max Marks
Sl. Individual Non-individual
No. Parameter including entities
Partnerships
1. Capability to
provide 35 35
infrastructure
and facilities*
4
2. Capability to 35 35
provide finance*
3. Educational 15 0
qualifications
4. Age of individual 04 15
5. Experience 04 8
6. Business 05 7
ability/acument
7. Personality 02 0
TOTAL 100 100
3. The learned counsel submits that while the petitioner herein was awarded 99 marks out of 100, the 3rd respondent was awarded 100 marks. The learned counsel points out from the records that in the evaluation parameters, 4 marks are awarded for "experience", and the bone of contention is the marks awarded to the 3rd respondent, in this category. The 3rd respondent was interviewed on 30.06.2009 and the petitioner, on 01.07.2009. On 09.07.2009, the petitioner herein has written a complaint to the 2nd respondent, inter alia contending that the 3rd respondent had produced fake 5 certificate regarding his experience and therefore, he could not have been awarded full '4' marks. The petitioner also seems to have contended that she could not have been denied full marks in the parameter of 'experience'. The complaint clearly voices the grievance of the petitioner that the 2nd respondent is guilty of unfair practice.
4. The learned counsel submits that the petitioner had sought for certain documents and information from the 2nd respondent under the Right to Information Act (RTI) and the 2nd respondent had denied such information to the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner was forced to prefer an appeal before the competent authority and only after her appeal was allowed, the 2nd respondent parted with the required information.
5. The learned counsel further submits that the 2nd respondent, thereafter gave a reply dated 14.10.2010 6 stating that the investigation conducted by IOC, through its Field Officer, revealed that the experience certificate produced by the 3rd respondent was not fake. It was submitted by the learned Counsel that the petitioner had to make further enquiries and collect information to prove that the 3rd respondent did not possess the required experience. It is thereafter, in the month of July 2011, this writ petition came to be filed.
6. Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 have filed their respective statement of objections, denying the allegations and averments made in the petition.
7. Learned counsel Sri B.K.Sridhar, appearing for the 2nd respondent IOC, seeks to justify the allotment of distributorship made to the 3rd respondent. The learned counsel submits that in the normal course, the IOC requires its Field Officer to examine and verify the documents and information submitted by the applicants. 7 The learned counsel submits that the Field Officer has submitted a report after enquiry that the 3rd respondent was indeed handling Finance and Sales at M/s. Bhargavi Gas Agency between 11.01.2006 and 31.02.2007 and was drawing a salary of Rs.10,000/- per month. By way of confirmation, the partner of M/s. Bhargavi Gas Agency has written a letter dated 29.05.2010 to the 2nd respondent herein reiterating the Certificate of Experience issued on the letter head of ELF Gas (I) Ltd., in favour of the 3rd respondent.
8. Learned counsel Sri Ajoy Kumar Patil, appearing for the 3rd respondent vehemently defended the allotment made in favour of the 3rd respondent.
9. Both the learned counsel appearing for the respondents rely upon a judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sajeesh Babu. K /vs./ N.K.Santhosh and others reported in AIR 2013 SC 141. The learned 8 counsels submit that under similar circumstances, where the allotment of LPG distributorship was questioned by the unsuccessful candidate, in that case, the High Court had held that the experience certificates produced by the successful candidates were fraudulent and therefore quashed the grant of licence and had directed the Corporation to re-assess the candidates afresh. The learned counsels submit that when the matter was taken to the Hon'ble Apex Court, while referring to Clause 14 of the guidelines, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had held that the certificates of experience have no relevance in granting marks under the parameter 'experience', as the same has been awarded on the basis of the response to the questions related to the experience in the relevant field.
10. The question that remains to be considered by this Court is:
"whether there is any scope to entertain this petition in the light of the judgment of the 9 Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sajeesh Babu (supra)?".
11. No doubt, the case on hand is very similar to the case of Sajeesh Babu (supra) and the provisions of the guidelines for selection, in general, and Clause 14 in particular are peri materia. The fact situations are also very similar in as much as, while the successful candidate is awarded 4 marks for 'experience', the unsuccessful candidate/writ petitioner is awarded 3 marks. The allegation made is regarding the experience certificate and its genuineness. But, in that case the High Court had directed the Corporation to verify the genuineness of the experience certificates and the Corporation had deputed responsible persons for verification and it was ascertained from the issuing authority about the correctness of the statement made therein. It is in the light of this aspect that the Hon'ble Apex Court was satisfied about the genuineness of the experience certificates. Moreover, there 10 was no allegation of malafides against the members of the Selection Committee in that case. These twin aspects tilted the decision in favour of the Corporation and the allottee.
12. The attention of this Court was drawn to certain documents during the course of the arguments. The documents are:
(i) Copy of application for registration under the Karnataka Value Added Tax etc., maintained by the Commercial Taxes Department.
(ii) Copy of the Endorsement dated 01.12.2010, issued by the Panchayath Development Officer.
(iii) Copy of endorsement dated 4.02.2011 issued by the Assistant Labour Commissioner.
(iv) Copy of the reply dated 16.11.2010, by LPG division, Total Oil India Limited (formerly ELF Gas (I) Ltd.
(v) Copy of the letter dated 11.05.2011 issued by Agni LPG Agency (P) Ltd., authorized distributors of ELF gas.11
(vi) Copy of the reply letter dated 04.05.2011 issued by the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes.
13. These documents raise a cloud over the existence of M/s.Bhargavi Gas Agency during the relevant period. The letter of confirmation written by the partner of M/s.Bhargavi Gas Agency admits that the 3rd respondent was a partner in the firm. The exercise of inspection carried out by the Field Officer of the Corporation is limited to the extent of verifying from the office of M/s.
Bhargavi Gas Agency as to whether they had issued the experience certificate and not any further. When the learned counsel for the Corporation was confronted with the above documents, he submitted that the documents pertaining to the office of Commercial Tax Department and the Labour Department could not be verified, because these documents were placed before this Court subsequent to the filing of this writ petition. The learned 12 counsel further submits that they were never placed before the Corporation.
14. The learned counsel for the petitioner draws the attention of this Court to Clause 23 of the guidelines for selection which reads as under:
"23. FURNISHING OF FALSE INFORMATION If any information furnished by the applicant is found to be false at any point of time before or after appointment as a dealer, the allotment shall be cancelled forthwith and distributorship terminated in case commissioned."
15. It is therefore clear that even after the appointment of a dealer, the allotment could be cancelled and distributorship could be terminated if it is found that the information furnished by the applicant is false or fraudulent. This clause envisions the principle, "fraud vitiates everything".
16. In the light the discussions above, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner has made out a prima 13 facie case that the agency where the 3rd Respondent claimed to have worked was not in existence during the relavant period. The Petitioner has contended that the selection process smacks of malafides. The question raised by this Court stands answered in the affirmative.
17. The Corporation is duty bound to verify the genuineness of the information supplied by the 3rd Respondent. The 3rd Respondent also should be given a fair opportunity to substantiate his claim. Therefore, the 3rd respondent herein shall treat this writ petition as a show- cause notice and submit his reply to the 2nd respondent Corporation within a period of ten days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. The 3rd respondent shall not only furnish his reply based on the documents mentioned above, but also take note of all other documents and averments made by the petitioner herein. The 2nd respondent-Corporation shall conduct an enquiry after receiving the reply from the 3rd respondent 14 herein, pass orders in accordance with law, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of the reply from the 3rd respondent herein and furnish a copy to this Court.
The petition stands disposed of. No order as to costs.
SD/-
JUDGE KLY/-