Smt. Vinod Kanwar @APPELLANT@Hash Union of India

Gopal Krishan Vyas Â

In this special appeal filed by the appellant-petitioner under Rule 134 of the Rajasthan High Court Rules, 1952 the judgment dated 17.11.2018 is under

challenged whereby the learned Single Judge dismissed SBCWP No.5948/2009 filed by the appellantpetitioner Smt. Vinod Kanwar for seeking

direction to the respondent corporation to comply the decision of the Selection Board constituted for appointment of LPG Distributorship on the basis

of highest marks scored by the petitioner and may be directed to grant LPG Distributorship at the earliest against the place mentioned at S.No.43

Ladnun (Nagaur). Â

 As per the facts of the case, the application of the appellant was rejected by the respondents for grant of LPG GasÂ

Distributorship on the ground that appellant-petitioner failed to maintain the balance of Rs.10 lacs in her saving account and further the land

shown in ownership of her minor sons was based upon agreement and there was variation in the income of the appellant shown in the application

submitted with the affidavit filed at the time of field investigation.Â

 The appellant- petitioner claimed that her husband was awarded Gallantry Award “Shourya Chakra†by the Presdient of India and there is

priority for allotment being widow in the advertisement. As per contention of the appellant-petitioner, the appellant-petitioner was placed at

S.No.1 in priority for grant of LPG distributorship, but when letter of intent was not issued even after completion of the interview process for

months together, the appellant-petitioner approached the concerned authority, but no satisfactory reply was given to her.Â

 The appellant-petitioner preferred writ petition before the learned Single Judge and after issuance of notice, the respondent rejected the candidature

of the appellant-petitioner and informed the reason for rejection vide communication dated 8.7.2009.  The candidature of the appellant-

petitioner was rejected on the ground that at the time of field investigation, as per the procedure of the distributor selection, variations were found

in the information given by the appellant-petitioner in her application, therefore, her candidature was cancelled in view of clause 11 and 19(G) of the

advertisement. The following discrepancies were found in the application, which reads as under:-

“1. You have failed to maintain Rs.10,00,988/0 (Rupees Ten Lac Nine Hundred and Eighty Eight only) deposit in your saving Bank A/c for more

than three months from the date of application. As per the terms & conditions of the selection of LPG Distributorship under Clause No.14.2 of the

application form, the applicant is required to maintain funds in her saving bank A/c for minimum three months from the date of application or the date

of interview whichever is earlier. During the course of field Investigation carried out by the committee of two officers, it has come to our notice that

an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lac only) was withdrawn by the applicant on 04.12.2007 (which is within three months from the date of

application i.e. 02.12.2007).

You have mentioned in the application that the assets viz. Plots (Plot no. 103, 104, 105 Khasra no. 819/1, Fatehpur) purchased are in the name of

your two minor sons and is also having 1/3 share in the ancestral property (Agricultural Land Khasra no. 219.220.221/1 Alphsar). As per the terms &

condition of the advertisement under Clause No.14.4 of the application form, the assets should be in the name of the family unit (in your case family is

self, unmarried son(s)/ daughter(s) as on the date of advertisement. In the subject case the assets are not found to be registered in the name of family

unit.Â

There is a variance in the Income affidavit submitted with the application and the findings at the time of Field Investigation. Supporting documents

for the heads of the Annual Income as per the affidavit submitted with the application were not made available during Field Investigation. The income

detail as per the application is Rs.1,50,000/- whereas the income as per the affidavit submitted along with the application is different. Income shown in

affidavit is from Property : Rs.3,38,920; Interest / Divident : Rs.72,000/-; Income from Agriculture : Rs.30,000/-;

Income from other sources, pension etc. Rs.85,000/-.

 To explain the discrepancies, a rejoinder was filed by the appellant-petitioner to before the learned Single Judge in which it is stated that being

widow of a martyr who laid his life to the nation, was having the responsibility of two children and though she was having an amount of

Rs.10,00,988/-0 as on 2.12.2017 but on 4.12.2017 an amount of Rs.1 lac was withdrawn by her for ailment of her child, leaving balance in saving

account of Rs.9,00,988/-, however, very next day which is 5.12.2017 she deposited Rs.2 lacs in her account, thus, there was balance of Rs.11,00,988/-

as such it cannot be said that she fell short of sound financial position so as to debar her from grant of dealership. It is also submitted that there is no

condition prescribed that amount of Rs.10 lacs is required to be maintained for three months at all cost. In fact, this was not mandatory condition

rather it was directory in nature, therefore, appellantpetitioner was not disqualified for allotment of LPG dealership on the said ground.Â

 With respect to the second variation it is submitted that the position of the property of her sons were shown in the application form as she had

purchased the properties mentioned in the application by sale agreement and registry of these plots could not be done since these plots were situated in

Municipality, Fatehpur Shekhawat area and the case under Section 90B of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act was pending. It is also pointed out

that the Registry could be done as soon as it is converted to Aabadi land.  With regard to other property of land it is submitted that she had

shown her share to the extent of 1/3rd in the irrigated land, but admitted that said land cannot be recorded n the name of her sons or in her name

during the life time of her father-in-law as per the revenue rules, but fact remains that appellant-petitioner was having 1/3rd share in the land being

ancestral agricultural land for which an affidavit of her father-in-law duly attested by the Tehsildar to this effect was submitted before the members

of the field investigation team.Â

 As per the appellant-petitioner, the annual income was shown in the application as Rs.5,25,920/- which is evident from column no.14.1 of the

application form. The writ petition filed y the appellant-petitioner was dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide judgment dated 14.3.2010, but said

order was challenged before the Division Bench of this Court by way of DBSAW No.252/2010. The special appeal filed by the

appellantpetitioner was allowed vide judgment dated 29.3.2011 whereby the order passed by the learned Single Judge was set aside with the

request to her the matter afresh.Â

 The learned Single Judge provided an opportunity of hearing afresh and after hearing learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition again vide

impugned judgment dated 17.11.2017, which is under challenged in this special appeal.Â

 Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that a serious error has been committed by the learned Single Judge in dismissing the writ

petition on the ground that there is no variations in the information furnished by the appellant in the application form because neither there was

variation in the information furnished by the appellant nor any variation was found on the spot verification carried out by the respondents, but the

learned Single Judge without considering the said aspect of the matter, has dismissed the writ petition, therefore, the judgment impugned deserves

to be quashed. Learned counsel for the appellant further argued that learned Single Judge has failed to exercise its jurisdiction vested in it to hear

and decide the writ petition on true merits in accordance with law. All the terms and conditions mentioned in the advertisement were satisfied by

the appellant-petitioner, but the learned Single Judge did not consider the very important aspect of the matter that discrepancies which were pointed

out by the respondents for rejection of her claim are not in existence. It is also argued that the learned Single Judge has not applied its mind and not

appreciated the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Abhishek Kumar Vs. HPCL reported in (2016) 4 Scale 27 (SC) and Sunita

Gupta Vs. Union of India & Ors. reported in (2014) CDR 756 and other judgments of the Hon'ble Court, which is cited by the appellant, therefore, the

impugned judgment deserves to be quashed. The crux of argument of learned counsel for the appellant is that the candidature of the appellant has

been rejected on higher technical grounds and learned Single Judge has not recorded any finding so as to reach to the definite conclusion that appellant

was not having any case of merit. As per learned counsel for the appellant it was obligatory on the part of the learned Single Judge to appreciate

the complete facts and to give proper decision, but learned Single Judge did not care to appreciate the judgment of Division Bench and committed

a serious error in dismissing the writ petition, which resulted into failure of justice.Â

 Lastly, it is argued that the reason for rejecting the candidature of appellant’s candidature for award of LPG dealership are not sustainable in

eye of law because neither there is variation in the income of appellant nor there is any variation in the facts stated in the application form. The two

plots so shown by the appellant in the property and asset of the appellant were in the name of her minor sons by way of sale agreement which

are in her possession. However, those plots are not going to be used for the purpose of LPG dealership. More so, the share of appellant’sÂ

husband in agricultural land could not be transferred until her father-in-law is alive, therefore, learned Single Judge committed serious error in

dismissing the writ petition and upholding the reason for rejection of appellant’s entitlement of LPG dealership.Â

 After hearing learned counsel for the appellant it emerges from the facts that an information was given in the application form by the appellant-

petitioner with respect to the plot being no.103, 104 and 105 as being in the name of her minor sons was found to be incorrect according to the

appellant herself because mere agreement to sale upon which appellant is claiming her right, does not confer any title or ownership in favour of her

minor sons. It is also admitted position of the case that appellantpetitioner deposited Rs.2 lacs in her account on 5.12.2007 but on

4.12.2007, the amount in bank was Rs.9,00,998/- and was not Rs.10 lacs, hence, investigation team found variation in the amount as entered in the

application. It is true that there is no condition prescribed that an amount of Rs.10 lacs is required to be maintained at all cost but in view of theÂ

condition no.14.2 there is provisions that in case of married applicant family is â€" self, spouse unmarried son(s), Daughter (s) in case of unmarried

applicant family is self, parents and unmarried brother (s)/unmarried sister(s)*. Attach affidavit as per format given in Annexure-c. The amount

mentioned should remain in the bank for minimum period of three months from the date of application or the interview date whichever is earlier.Â

Obviously, as per condition no.14.2 the amount is not disclosed but it was made it clear that whatever amount is mentioned in the application form

should remain in the bank for minimum period of three months from the date of application or the interview date, but appellant herself accepted that

Rs.1 lac was withdrawn and on 4.12.2007 the amount in bank was less than Rs.10 lacs.

 We have considered the third discrepancy upon which candidature of the appellant was rejected. Admittedly, in the application form the gross

income in the financial year was mentioned as Rs.1,50,000/- whereas in the affidavit submitted alongwith the application form it is stated that gross

income is Rs.5,25,920/-. Meaning thereby, there was clear cut discrepancy and variations were found at the time field inspection. The learned Single

Judge observed that this court may have ignored the minor discrepancies on account of sympathetic ground but for the fact that every applicant under

this category is similarly situated, the applicants are given marks as per the information supplied in the application form. There is a stiff competition

amongst the candidates of same category, therefore, the candidature of any such applicant if found to carry any discrepancy is bound to be rejected in

compliance of clause 11 and 19(G) of the advertisement.Â

 Upon consideration of entire arguments and clause 11 and 19(G) of the advertisement, we are of the opinion that the judgment cited by the learned

counsel for the appellant in the case of Abhishek Kumar and Sunita Gupta (supra) are not applicable in the case of the appellant because facts of this

case are altogether different than the facts of the case of aforesaid judgments. The learned Single Judge while following the judgment of Division

Bench of this court in the case of Jitendra Choudhary Vs. Union of India (DBSAW No.1461/2014, decided on 12.2.2005) and while following the

judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court    in the case of Shiv Kant Yadav Vs. Indian Oil Corporation & Ors. reported in AIR 2007 SC 1534

refused to interfere in the writ petition.Â

 In our opinion, due to discrepancies and variations found by the field inspection team, the appellant-petitioner is not entitled for any relief because

her case was considered on the basis of information furnished by her, but at the time of field inspection, discrepancies were found, therefore, the

appellant-petitioner cannot claim any right on the basis of information furnished in the application form, which were not found correct by the field

inspection team. Every applicant is required to disclose correct facts and any mis-statement made by the candidate is required to be

considered to reject the claim. It is very important to mention here that location of Ladnu, District Nagaur were subsequently advertized in the

year 2010 in which respondent no.8 being eligible applied in pursuance of the advertisement and letter of intent was issued to him on 4.4.2011. He is

presently working as LPG distributor at the location Ladnu where he has invested huge amount for establishing the infrastructure for the

distributorship of the said LPG at Ladnu, District Nagaur. The said distributorship was allotted to him under the category of ex-service man and

invalidated on account of his disability suffered by him due to militant action on 14.1.2005 while performing patrolling duty at an under age of 23

years. Therefore, there is no question to cancel the distributorship which is   subsequently given under an advertisement to the respondent no.8

by the respondents upon which the appellant is claiming her right.Â

 In view of the above, there is no force in this special  appeal and the same is hereby dismissed.Â