Madhya Pradesh High Court
Durgesh Kumar Bamne vs India Oil Corporation Limited on 28 March, 2018
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
W.P.No.7058/2018
(Durgesh Kumar Bamne Vs. Indian Oil Corporation Limited & another)
JABALPUR, DATED : 28/03/2018
Shri K.C.Ghildiyal, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri S.C.Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the respondent
No.1.
Shri Sanjay K.Agrawal, learned counsel for the intervener.
The petitioner has filed the present writ petition challenging the order dated 20.03.2018 issued by respondent No.2 thereby terminating the LPG Distributor Ship granted in favour of the petitioner in July, 2014 under the Schedule Caste Category in the town of the Itarsi on the ground that the petitioner has given incorrect declaration in the affidavit submitted by him along with the application form.
Heard learned counsel for the parties, on the question of admission as well as grant of interim relief.
Respondent No.2 had issued an advertisement on 15.11.2011 thereby inviting applications for distributorship at Itarsi location in Scheduled Caste Category. The section for the allocation of M.P. Regular Distributorship was to be made in accordance with the brochure on guidelines for sanction issued by respondent No.1. The petitioner as well as other contenders submitted their applications as required under the brochure issued by respondent No.1. The lots were drawn on 08.08.2012. After opening of the lots, a false complaint against the petitioner was made by Deepak Sonkar and thereafter the said complaint was investigated and in the said investigation report it was found that none of the allegations made in the complaint submitted by Deepak Sonkar against the petitioner was found correct. Deepak Sonkar has challenged the allotment of distributorship in favour of the petitioner. The said writ petition No.15566/2012 was disposed of vide order dated 09.10.2012 thereby respondents were directed to decide the pending representation submitted by Deepak Sonkar thereafter an investigation was made and all the allegations were found incorrect and the representation was rejected. Thereafter the LOI was issued in favour of the petitioner on 31.01.2014 and later of appointment was also issued on 10.07.2014. Thereafter another complaint was received from one Smt.Rama Jatav alleging same allegations. The said complaint was also investigated and the allegations were found incorrect. Thereafter another complaint was made against the petitioner by Shri Karan Singh Tomar and others therefore a committee was constituted of two officers to investigate into the allegations and a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 18.12.2015.
The petitioner has filed reply to the said show cause notice on 07/01/2016. The petitioner thereafter filed writ petition No.1076/2016 before this Court the said writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 22/04/2016 and the petitioner was granted liberty to file additional reply. The petitioner thereafter submitted an additional reply.
Respondent No.2 thereafter issued an order on 29/11/2016 wherein it has been contended that the charges against the petitioner were framed by learned Judicial Magistrate, Itarsi on 11/07/2008 for offences under Sections 332/34, 294, 506(B) and 323/34 of the IPC in Criminal Case No.150/2004.
It is further contended that the charge under Section 332 of IPC involves moral turpitude and a false affidavit has been filed by the petitioner therefore, proposing to take action against the petitioner. The petitioner thereafter filed writ petition No.20256/2016 challenging order dated 29.11.2016. During the course of the writ petition, it was contended on behalf of the respondents that the writ petition is premature and presently no action was proposed against the petitioner. In view of the above statement made on behalf of respondents, this Court has not granted any interim relief in favour of the petitioner.
During the pendency of this writ petition, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner by respondent No.2 on 16.01.2017 in which it has stated that all the charges against the petitioner were framed under Section 332/34, 294, 506 (B) and 323/34 of the IPC by the Judicial Magistrate, Itarsi and the said case was pending at the time of submission of the application form by the petitioner on 15/12/2011 and the offence of Section 332 of the IPC is covered under offences involving moral turpitude.
The petitioner submitted reply to the show cause notice on 03/03/2017 and in the reply the petitioner has stated that the charge under Section 332 of the IPC does not involve any offence relating to moral turpitude. The respondents without considering the reply submitted by the petitioner has passed an order dated 20.03.2018 thereby terminating the distributorship of the petitioner with effect from 16th day from the termination notice being aggrieved by that order the petitioner has filed the present petition.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order dated 20/03/2018 is illegal, arbitrary, malafide and issued under the political influence. He further submits that the petitioner has neither been convicted by any criminal court nor he has been charged for any offence involving moral turpitude. It has been stated that the offence under Section 332 of the IPC does not involves any moral turpitude.
Earlier, similar complaints were made against the petitioner and the same were repeatedly investigated and it was found that the offences alleged against the petitioner does not amount to the moral turpitude. He further submits that the distributorship has been allotted to the petitioner in the year 2014 and it is only his bread and butter and the source of livelihood. In such circumstances, he prays that the impugned order be stayed.
On the other hand respondents have submitted their reply and in the reply stated that the some complaints were made against the petitioner and on the basis of the said complaint investigation was carried out in the said investigation it was found that the criminal case was registered against the petitioner in the year 2008, under Sections 332/34, 294, 506(B) and 323/34 of the IPC and the offence under 332/34 of the IPC involves of the moral turpitude and therefore, the distributorship of the petitioner has been cancelled and, therefore, no interference is required in the matter. The complainant has also filed their application for intervention on behalf of Shri Sanjay K. Agrawal, Advocate on due consideration, the said application is allowed and intervener is permitted to interven in the matter. The petitioner is directed to implead the intervener as respondents in the cause title of the petition.
Learned counsel for the parties heard on the question of grant of interim relief.
Petitioner has filed the present writ petition challenging the order dated 20.03.2018 issued by respondent No.2 thereby cancelling the LPG Distributorship granted in favour of the petitioner. The said order has been passed by the respondents on the ground that the criminal case was registered against the petitioner under Sections 332/34, 294, 506(B) and 323/34 of the IPC by Judicial Magistrate, Itarsi. At the time of submitting an application form of the criminal cases are pending before the Court. The petitioner was subsequently acquitted from the said charges. The sole question for determination in this petition is that whether an offence under Section 332 of the IPC involves moral turpitude or not. In the present case earlier also similar allegations have been made against the petitioner and those complaints were investigated by respondents by the appointing the committee and the committee has given report in favour of the petitioner. In the return filed by the respondents in earlier ground of litigation the respondents have stand land of petitioner. Thus, as the complaint has already been investigated against the petitioner therefore, the petitioner has been able to make out a prima facie case in his favour. Accordingly, the operation of the impugned order dated 20.03.2018 is hereby stayed. The petitioner is free to file rejoinder, to the reply filed by respondent No.2.
List the case after four weeks.
(Ms. Vandana Kasrekar) Judge SM Digitally signed by SARSWATI MEHRA Date: 2018.04.03 17:28:06 +05'30'