Vijay Pratap Singh vs Union of India and 7 Otwers

Khem Karan, J.

The applicant vijay Pratap Singh, who was opp. Party no.8 in Writ Petition No.1590 (M/B) of 2003, has moved this review petition for reconsidering the order dated 1.4.2003, whereby the writ petition was finally disposed of as under:

"Learned counsel for the petitioner restricts his prayer to the extent that his representation may be decided. It is innocuous prayer. Learned counsel for the opposite parties, Sri Anil Kumar has no objection for disposal of the representation.

Accordingly, we provide, let the representation of the petitioner be finally decided. In case, the aforesaid original representations are not on record of the opposite party No.4, then representations (Annexure Nos. 15, 17 and 21) in the writ petition be treated as original representation to be disposed of. Till disposal of such representation, dealership agreement shall not be given effect to.

In the light of the above, the writ petition is finally disposed of."

There is no dispute that Indian Oil corporation (for short IOC) invited applications from eligible persons, vide advertisement dated 29.12.1997 for giving SKO/LDO dealership at Kotila Azamgarh. The applicant applied for the same. The advertisement was however, cancelled and a fresh advertisement was issued on 24/25.8.2000. The applicant Vijay Pratap Singh, Devendra Singh (O.P. No.8) and others applied for getting the said dealership. One of the conditions of the eligibility criteria was that the annual income of the candidate or of his parents, if he was dependent on them, in the previous financial year, should not exceed Rs.2,00,000/ (two lacs). The Selection Board prepared a list of three persons in order of preference and the applicant Vijay Pratap Singh was at SI. No.1, opposite party No.8 at No.2 and one Smt. Savita at No.3.

It appears that opposite party No.8 made a complaint in November, 2001 against the selection of Vijay Pratap Singh saying that his income in the relevant financial years (199697) (19992000) was more than two lacs. It is alleged by Vijay Pratap Singh in para 16, 17 & 18 of his review petition that a committee consisting of Sri Basu Pupneja (Chief Retail Marking Manager) and Sri J.P. Singh (C.L.M.) was constituted to look into the complaint of Sri Devendra Singh and this committee held meetings and after giving opportunity of hearing to opposite party No.8, found the complaint illfounded. The report submitted in June, 2002 was in favour of the applicant and, therefore, a letter of intent was issued in his favour on 17.6.2002. This letter of intent had to be cancelled because of the order dated 9.8.2002 of the Central Government, by which dealership after a particular date had been cancelled. Ultimately, the Apex Court took a different view and the letter of intent was again revived on 27.1.2003 (Annexure12 to the review petition). It is stated by Vijay Pratap Singh that several steps have already been taken for starting the business and substantial amount has already been invested in purchasing the land etc. He says that the opposite party No.8 gave a new complaint saying that the dealership to the applicant was given for political consideration. He says that when the matter was almost ripe for commissioning of the dealership, opposite party No.8, filed a writ petition No.1590 (M/B) of 2003 before this Court at Lucknow seeking cancellation of letter of intent date 17.6.2002 and concealing the material fact that the allegation had already been enquired into by the committee. It is stated by Vijay Pratap Singh in para32 to 35 of the review petition that the factum of inquiry by the committee into the allegations made by opposite party No.8, the factum of giving of an opportunity of hearing to the opposite party No.8 and others, the factum of submission of report by the committee in favour of the applicant Vijay Pratap Singh, were deliberately concealed by the petitioner of writ petition No.1590(M/B)of 2003.

It is alleged by Vijay Pratap Singh that what has been said in Annexures No.15 & 17 has already been enquired into and decided and therefore, there was no point for making a request that such representations be again considered and disposed of. It has also been said that last portion of the order providing that effect will not be given to the agreement, was to the detriment of the applicant Vijay Pratap Singh and so could not have been finally passed without giving an opportunity of hearing to him. It is said that had the petitioner Devendra Singh not concealed the material facts, as mentioned above, the Court would not have passed that order of 1.4.2003.

In his counter affidavit, Devendra Singh has tried to say that the factum of submission of the enquiry report by the committee was never communicated to him, so there was no occasion for him to state about the same in the writ petition. It is also state that no material facts were concealed in the writ petition and in fact the complaints in Annexures No.17 and 21 were fresh one and therefore, it cannot be said that the same had already been enquired into by any committee. Devendra Singh has also reiterated that Vijay Pratap Singh concealed the income of his mother and he also concealed the "gross income" of his father, as observed by the committee itself in the report of 17.6.2002. He has also submitted that the fact that the dealership in favour of Vijay Pratap Singh was influenced by the political consideration is more than evident from the material on record and was the subject matter of the complaint (Annexure21) and this Court committed no error by directing the authority concerned to consider and dispose of the same, as that complaint was never enquired into and decided by the opposite parties. Several other points have also been taken in the counter affidavit and supplementary affidavit of Devendra Singh.

We have heard Sri D.P. Singh, learned counsel for the applicant Vijay Pratap Singh, Dr. L. P. Misra for Devendra Singh, Sri Anil Kumar for the Indian Oil Corporation and other officers.

This much is not in dispute that the order dated 1.4.2003 passed in writ petition No.1590 (M/B) 2003 was without any notice to the applicant, Vijay Pratap Singh. There can be no debate that the order dated 1.4.2003 of this Court providing "till disposal of such representations, dealership agreement shall not given effect to", could not have been finally passed without notice to applicant vijay Pratap Singh or without giving him an opportunity of hearing. There is no controversy that it is because of this orer that further steps towards commissioning of the dealership in favour of Vijay Pratap Singh is stalled. Sri Anil Kumar, the learned counsel for Indian Oil Corporation, has informed us that in compliance of the orders of this Court, the matter has again been enquired into but the result has not been announced.

It appears to be a settled legal position that orders obtained by concealment of facts, deserve to be set aside. In this connection, reference may be made to Welcom Hotel & others v. State of Andhra Pradesh & others (1983) 4 SCC page 575, the Chancellor & another v. Dr. Vijaynanda Kar & others, (1994) 1 SCC, 169, wherein it has clearly been held that suppression of material facts disentitles the petitioner to any relief at the hands of the Court. The Apex Court has also ruled in S. Nagraj & others v. State of Karnataka & others, (1993) Supp. (4) SCC 595 that the order of the court should not be prejudicial to any one and if the court finds that the order was passed under a mistake and it would not have exercised the jurisdiction but for the erroneous assumption which in fact did not exist, it can rectify the error. In other words, if an order has been passed either by mistake or by suppression of material facts and if the order is causing miscarriage of justice, it has to be reviewed. Similar was the view of this Court in Dr. Sushma Misra v. U.P. Higher Education Service Commission, (1982) 2 UPLBEC 1502. It was said that if an order was passed on misapprehension of facis, then there was no rule which prevented it from reviewing the same.

Now let us see whether there was any suppression of material fact on the part of opp. Party No.8. We have gone through the contents of the writ petition and Annexures 15,17, and 21 to the same. In fact the subjectmatter of Annexures 15 and 17 was almost the same i.e. alleged income beyond the maximum limit of Vijay Pratap Singh and the faulty approach adopted by the committee in enquirying into the complaint regarding income. No doubt, Annexure 21 contained a new allegation that the dealership was influenced by the political consideration, it is surprising that the petitioner, who had been given an opportunity of hearing by the committee and who was also given a personal hearing by the committee, did not state in so many words in the relevant paras of his writ petition. The report of the committee came in June 2002 and the writ petition was filed in March 2003. We fail to understand as to how Devendra singh says that he had no knowledge of the result of the enquiry committee. He himself stated in one of the paras of Annexure17 dated 5.7.2002 that inquiry officers did not enquire in a proper way. How Devendra Singh could know that the inquiry officer did not hold proper enquiry, if the result of inquiry was not known to him.

The very fact that intent letter was issued on 17.6.2002 in favour of Vijay Pratap Singh was indicative of the fact that either inquiry report had not been given or enquiry had gone against the complainant. The contention of Devendra Singh that since copy of the inquiry report was not endorsed to him, therefore, he could not make averment in the writ petition regarding the same, does not appeal to us at all. We are not concerned with the question as to whether copy of the evidences given by Vijay Pratap Singh as regards his income, ought to have been given to the complainant Devendra Singh. We are also not concerned whether annual income of his parents, as found by the committee was correct or incorrect. The question is whether the petitioner concealed the material fact that his allegation regarding the annual income of Vijay Pratap Singh had already been enquired into by the committee and a report had already been submitted.

After perusing the relevant material and considering the respective submissions, we have no manner of doubt that the petitioner concealed this fact while presenting his writ petition. Had the factum of disposal of complaint been brought to our notice, we would have not provided for disposal of the same again. Since the petitioner has not come with true facts and suppressed materials facts, therefore, his writ petition deserves to be dismissed.

In the result, the review petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 1.4.2003 is hereby recalled and the writ petition No. 1590 (M/B) of 2003 is hereby dismissed. No orders as to costs.

(Review petition allowed)