S. Muniyasamy vs The Government of India, The Regional Manager, Bharath Petroleum Corporation, Chennai and The Territory Manager LPG Bharath Petroleum Corporation, Tuticorin Territory LPG Tuticorin

Honourable Mr. Justice K. Chandru

The petitioner is an aspirant for getting LPG dealership from Bharat Petroleum Corporation under the Rajiv Gandhi Gramin LPG Vitrak scheme. When the publication was advertised in the Dinakaran newspaper, dated 31.03.2010, Madurai edition seeking for application for LPG dealership, he also made an application claiming that he is the resident of Karivalamvandanallur Village in Sankarankovil Taluk, Tirunelveli District. The said village out let was exclusively for persons belongs to Schedule Caste community. The notification itself gave certain requirements for making applications. One such requirement was that the land which has to be shown for the purpose of putting up godown should be available in the same revenue village.

The petitioner made an application giving the particulars of his land owned by him, which was situated in Kuvalaikanni Panchayat. In the final list of applications found eligible who were are qualified for short-list of selection under the Rajiv Gandhi Gramin LPG Vitrak scheme in respect of the LPG Out let, name of the petitioner also finds a place. It was described the selection is for the Karivalamvandanallur Village under SC category.

The petitioner also went for the selection process and marks were awarded by the Committee comprising of Territory Manager and Territory Coordinator. He received telegram from the third respondent asking him to contact the Territory Manager, Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd, Tuticorin. Since the respondent found that the petitioner''s original land shown in the application did not come within the revenue village of Karivalamvandanallur Village, he was informed that there was discrepancy between the original settlement deed dated 28.04.2010 and the Encumbrance Certificate obtained by the committee showed that the lands offered were in Karivalamvandanallur situated in Kuvalaikanni Village. Therefore, it is stated that as per the notification that the land for construction of godown should be in the advertised location. In the application he has made a declaration that he was aware that any information furnished if found to be false or misrepresented, his application was liable to be cancelled. It was at this stage, the petitioner after getting the cancellation order dated 28.06.2011, came forward to challenge the said order.

Notice of motion was ordered on 08.07.2011. If the dealership had not been granted to any other person so far, the respondents are restrained from granting the dealership till 18.07.2011 and the same was extended from time to time until 12.10.2011. Thereafter, there was no further extension granted by this Court.

In the meanwhile, the third respondent has filed counter affidavit dated 29.07.2011. In the counter affidavit it is stated that the petitioner in his application form had stated the he owned suitable land on the advertised location for the LPG Godown and showroom. But the advertised location was only Karivalamvandanallur Village and not Kuvalaikanni Village. Therefore, the petitioner was not eligible to compete for the dealership. It is also stated that since he had said ''yes'' in the column showing against query No.9 regarding to location. Hence, it was a misrepresentation and he was ineligible to consider.

The standing counsel for the Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd., also filed a typeset showing the list of person who were found eligible in respect of Karivalamvandanallur Village. The petitioner whose application was originally considered had secured only 95 marks. Above the petitioner there were two other candidates who have secured 100% marks.

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the only disqualification was that land was in Kiuvalaikanni Village, and he was also willing to produce ownership of lands in the same village. For that purpose he had produced a patta standing in the name of his family under various survey numbers starting from 2D1 in the said village. He also produced a certificate given by the Additional Government Pleader, Sankarankovil to show that he has got a clear title over the said property. Such an exercise cannot be entertained at this Stage, especially when the qualification eligible for dealership has to be seen only on the date of notification and not on any subsequent dates.

In the present case in the original application form though he had stated he owned land in Karivalamvandhanallur Village, but on verification it was found those lands were not situated in the same village. Therefore, the respondent though included the petitioner''s name in the eligible candidates list, having found that he was ineligible, had rightly rejected the case of the petitioner.

This Court is not inclined to accept the petitioner''s offer of showing some other land, since such information was not furnished at the time of submitting his application form. In the counter affidavit, it was also stated that there are several other persons who were equally disqualified for the very same reason. Therefore, the petitioner cannot claim any special privilege or for separate treatment in his case alone.

Under the said circumstances, there is no case made out by the petitioner. The writ petition stands dismissed. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs.