ORDER : This batch of cases compels me to write a prefatory note. Dexterous attempts and adroit efforts have been made to create a labyrinthine and all sorts of pleadings have been brought on record, narration of which may not be relevant for the purpose of adjudication to accentuate the scenario of embroilment. One is required to remember even at the hazard of dissection that keen approach is to be adopted to arrive at the truth which is nothing but a species of revelation. R. G. Ingersoll spoke: "The man who finds a truth lights a torch" In Abrahams vs. United States, 250 U. S. Oliver Mendell Holmes emphasised. "the truth is the only ground upon which their wishes safely can be carried out." But unfortunately in the cases at hand a conatus has been manifested to create a mizmaze forgetting the sacrosanct principle that a man has no nobler function than to defend the truth. At this juncture I am inclined to quote the classic lines from John Keats : "Beauty is truth, truth is beauty :- that is all." Keeping the aforesaid view, this Court has to advert to the essential facts and take steps to clear the maze so that the principium 'Satya Mev Jayate' eventually triumphs and law buries the ugly that is not beautiful and the untruthful and mendacious get into the abysmal. To achieve the same discretion has to be exercised in its complete sense. To quote an eminent Jurist : "Discretion is a science of understanding to discern between falsity and truth, between right and wrong, between shadows and substance, between equity and colourable glosses and pretences." In the cases at hand more circumspection is necessary than 'spasomdic sentiment' as the facts exposit a mult-dimentional scenario. 2. After the aforesaid prefatory note, it is apposite to state here that these batch of writ petitions being interlinked and interconnected were analogously heard and are disposed of by this common order. However, for the sake of clarity and convenience, facts in each case shall separately be adumbrated at the relevant stage. 3. At first I shall deal with W. P. No. 75/1995. However, for the sake of clarity and convenience, facts in each case shall separately be adumbrated at the relevant stage. 3. At first I shall deal with W. P. No. 75/1995. In the said case the petitioner, Smt. Chinta Jaiswal, invoking the extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this Court has prayed for a issue of writ of mandamus, commanding the respondents 1 and 2 to produce the record of selection; issue a writ of certiorari for quashment of appointment of dealership in favour of respondent No. 3; further issue a writ of mandamus commanding the respondent No. 1 to grant the dealership to the petitioner; and to act strictly in accordance with the direction issued by this Court on 14-10-1993 in M. P. No. 1995/1985. 4. The facts as have been uncurtained in the writ petition are that the respondent No. 1, the Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. issued an advertisement calling upon unemployed graduates to make applications in the form and the conditions mentioned therein by certain date. The eligibility conditions as stipulated thereafter were that a person should be an Indian citizen; that he should be 21 years of age and not more than 35 years of age on the date of application; that he should be a graduate of the University; that he should be a resident of the same district and should be a member of a family whose income is not more than 24,000/-. This application was required to be filed along with an affidavit disclosing full particulars. As the petitioner satisfied all the conditions laid down in the advertisement she applied for grant of dealership of L.P.G. Agency. In all 29 applications were received out of which 23 persons were called for interview by the Oil Selection Board (hereinafter referred to as 'the Board') at Raipur. In the interview the petitioner was placed at serial No. 2 whereas one Padampat Garg was placed at serial No. 1 in the selection list. A letter of intent was issued in favour of said Padampat Garg. The aforesaid action of the Board was challenged by the petitioner before this Court in M. P. No. 1995/1985 on various grounds. The main ground which was canvassed was that the said Garg had an income of more than Rs. 24,000/- per annum as he was the sole proprietor of Padam Textile Agency. The aforesaid action of the Board was challenged by the petitioner before this Court in M. P. No. 1995/1985 on various grounds. The main ground which was canvassed was that the said Garg had an income of more than Rs. 24,000/- per annum as he was the sole proprietor of Padam Textile Agency. This Court after hearing the parties came to hold the case of said Garg could not have been considered by the Board and by such consideration the petitioner has been prejudiced. Being of this view this Court quashed the appointment of dealership and directed for issue of a fresh advertisement and to consider the application of the petitioner and others within a period of three months. Thereafter the respondent No. 1 issued an advertisement on 14-1-1994 inviting application from persons stipulating certain qualifications, namely, that the applicant should be a citizen of India; that the applicant should be a citizen of India; that he should not be less than 21 years of age and more than 51 years of age; that he should have passed the matriculation or any equivalent examination; that his family income should not be more than Rs. 50,000/-; that he should not possess any dealership/distributorship from any Oil Company; and that his close relation should not be a dealer/distributor of any Oil Company. The said advertisement has been brought on record as Annexure-C. In pursuance of the said advertisement the petitioner applied for grant of dealership. The Board fixed the date of interview on 10-10-1995. It is averred in the writ petition that though the interview has held no steps were taken for a month and the petitioner came to learn that one Rajesh Kumar Khandelwal had been granted the dealership of L.P.G. who had built a show room and a godwon for storing of the Gas Cylinders. Assailing the said action the petitioner has preferred W. P. 3740/1995. It is putforth that later on she came to know on 25-11-1995 the dealership has been granted to respondent No. 3. It is averred in the writ petition that the action of the Oil Selection Board is contrary to the directions given by this Court in the earlier writ petition as it was incumbent on the part of the Board to carry out the process of selection as per the earlier advertisement. It is averred in the writ petition that the action of the Oil Selection Board is contrary to the directions given by this Court in the earlier writ petition as it was incumbent on the part of the Board to carry out the process of selection as per the earlier advertisement. It has been pleaded that it is the duty of the Board to act in a reasonable and rational manner and it cannot act in total disregard by adverting to a practice which has no sanction of law. It has been setforth that the respondent No. 3 at the relevant point of time of making application was in United States of America (in short 'U.S.A.') and did not meet the eligibility criteria. It has also been pointed out that the respondent No. 3 has been under the employment of Shri Chandraswami and because of his influence he has got the dealership. Copies of certain newspapers have been brought on record to show that the respondent No. 3 has influenced the Board in obtaining the dealership. According to the petitioner the income of respondent No. 3 is more than 50,000/- as he is working in U.S.A. It has been further pleaded that the petitioner is an unemployed graduate and she has satisfied all the conditions of eligibility criteria and hence, she is entitled to get the dealership. With these averments it has been prayed to quash the appointment of respondent No. 3 as illegal and unwarranted. 5. A return has been filed by the respondent No. 1, the Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. contending, inter alia, that the advertisement dated 14-1-1994 is different than the advertisement which was published earlier and the latter advertisement has been issued keeping in view the policy decision as laid down by the Ministry of Petroleum, Government of India w.e.f. 1-1-1993 and has been made applicable to all the Oil Marketing Companies. On account of the policy decision the Oil Companies have been compelled to change the conditions and hence, no fault can be found with the respondent No. 1. Replying to the stand taken with regard to appointment of Rajesh Kumar Khandelwal it has been mentioned that he has been temporarily granted the L.P.G. Agency on ad hoc basis and is running the same in the name and style M/s Auto Filling Station. Replying to the stand taken with regard to appointment of Rajesh Kumar Khandelwal it has been mentioned that he has been temporarily granted the L.P.G. Agency on ad hoc basis and is running the same in the name and style M/s Auto Filling Station. It has been highlighted that the L.P.G. dealership granted in favour of M/s Padampat Garg was terminated pursuant to the order passed by this Court and there were number of customers who were to be supplied the re-filling and, therefore, the ad hoc appointment was required to be done and so done keeping in view the public interest. It is the stand of the respondent No. 1 that the respondent No. 3 has been issued the letter of intent as he was found more suitable after thoroughly evaluating the merits of the candidate in the field considering the relevant aspects. It has been pleaded that 85 candidates were called by the Board for interview out of which 51 candidates appeared and the Board prepared a panel vide its letter dated 12-10-1994 in which the respondent No.3 name appeared at serial No. 1 and the name of the petitioner at serial No. 2 in order of merit. It has been setforth that no documentary evidence was produced by the petitioner to substantiate the allegations made against respondent No. 3 and the action of the Board does not violate the equality clause enshrined under Article 14 of the Constitution. Justification of selection of respondent No. 3 has also been given in the counter affidavit. 6. A return has been filed by respondent No. 3 asseverating that he moved an application for grant of distributorship and personally handed over the same on 3-3-1994 to respondent No. 1 and the said application was supported by an affidavit dated 28-2-1994. The application has been brought on record as Annexure R. 2. It has been asserted that the said respondent is not serving in U.S.A. but has gone there on a Visitor's Visa-with his close relation Dr. Deo Ketu. Certain documents have been filed to show that the respondent No. 3 could not have taken any employment in U.S.A. As regards his association with Shri Chandraswami it has been stated that he has no association or connection either directly or indirectly with Shri Chandraswami and the newspaper items which have been published in various newspapers are at the instance of the petitioner. It has been putforth that he is an unemployed person and hence, he submitted the application in pursuance of the advertisement dated 14-1-1994. Counter allegations have been made against the petitioner indicating that she is above 50 years of age and has enough properties in her name and, therefore, she is disqualified to be considered as per the terms and conditions of the advertisement. It has also been pleaded that the advertisement in question is an open advertisement and an unemployed graduate is entitled to get preference. The fact that the petitioner was not at the relevant place when he moved the application and was in U.S.A. has been disputed. It has been pleaded that the respondent No. 3 went to U.S.A. in the month of June 1995 and returned in the month of September 1995 and the journey as well as stay was paid for by a close relation of his. It is also setforth that the petitioner herself is disqualified as she runs a medical store, owns a car and has a telephone and is also an Income-tax Payee. 7. A rejoinder has been filed by the petitioner to the return filed by the respondent No. 3 wherein it has been stated that on the date of filling of the form the respondent No. 3 was not at the relevant place and the same can be verified from his passport which has been deliberately withheld. It has been reiterated that if the travels of respondent No. 3 to U.S.A. and other countries are taken into consideration it can never be concluded that his annual income is less than Rs. 50,000/-. An affidavit of one Shivendra Singh has been brought on record to show that respondent No. 3 was working with Shri Chandraswami. Certain averments made in the return with regard to paper publications have been disputed and justification has been given to indicate that the petitioner had no role in the said publications. It has also been putforth that in the year 1990-1991 and 1991-1992 when the petitioner's income exceeded the tax limit she filed the income tax return disclosing her income. It has also been putforth that the petitioner is 41 years of age and, therefore, there was no disqualification for submitting the application. It has also been putforth that in the year 1990-1991 and 1991-1992 when the petitioner's income exceeded the tax limit she filed the income tax return disclosing her income. It has also been putforth that the petitioner is 41 years of age and, therefore, there was no disqualification for submitting the application. With regard to the allegation that the petitioner is the owner of a building having four shops it has been stated that the fund for constructing the said building was raised by taking loan from the Housing Society and partially from the savings of the husband of the petitioner while he was in service. The annual rental value as putforth by respondent No. 3 has been disputed. The other allegations in the return highlighting the income of the petitioner have been refuted. It has been asserted that her annual income has never exceeded Rs. 50,000/-. 8. An additional return on behalf of respondent No. 3 has been filed indicating that he personally handed over the application on 3-3-1994 in the office of the Indian Oil Corporation at Raipur and the said application was supported by an affidavit dated 28-2-1994. It has also been putforth that the said respondent was very much at Satna in the month of February and March 1994 and appeared in LL.B. Part-II examination from Law College, Satna during the period 24-3-1994 to 15-4-1994. It has been reiterated that he is an unemployed graduate and is dependant upon his parents for his livelihood. It has also been pleaded that he had been to U.S.A. at the cost of Dr. Deo Ketu who is his relation. It has been stated that the affidavit of Shivendra Singh to the effect that the petitioner is working with Shri Chandra Swami is totally incorrect inasmuch as the said Shivendra Singh is facing a trial under Section 302 of I.P.C. Various other affidavits filed by the petitioner have also been refuted. It has been pleaded that the petitioner is over age and hence, she could not have been allowed to compete with other applicants. Certain documents have been brought on record to show the age of the petitioner. As far as the income of the petitioner is concerned series of allegations have been made to show that the petitioner had more than Rs. 50,000/-income per year. 9. Certain documents have been brought on record to show the age of the petitioner. As far as the income of the petitioner is concerned series of allegations have been made to show that the petitioner had more than Rs. 50,000/-income per year. 9. A return has been filed by the respondent No. 2, the Oil Selection Board, contending, inter alia, that the advertisement was issued in consonance with the policy decision of the concerned department and there is no violation of the order of this Court passed on the earlier decision. It has been highlighted that respondent No. 2 held the interview keeping in view the informations supplied in the applications and the selection has been made as per the terms and conditions laid down in the advertisement. As far as representation dated 2-12-1995 of the petitioner is concerned it has been submitted that by that time the interview process had already been completed and, therefore, it was not open to the said respondent to consider the same. It has been clarified that the Oil Selection Board is an independent body and selection of respondent No. 3 was done on the basis of merit and it has nothing to do with Shri Chandraswami either directly or indirectly. It has been pleaded that there is no material before the Board to show that the respondent No. 3 was working in U. S. A. or his annual income was more than Rs. 50,000/- per annum. Apart from that justification has been given for selecting respondent No. 3. 10. A rejoinder affidavit has been filed by the petitioner to the additional return of the respondent No. 3 and return of respondents 1 and 2. In the said affidavit it has been putforth that respondent No. 3 has deliberately not produced the passport which is the best evidence to show that he was in India and in view of that adverse inference should be drawn. It has also been putforth that the affidavit sworn before the concerned Notary cannot be relied upon. It has also been pleaded that the father of respondent No. 2 is a Public Prosecutor and has a very lucrative practice and in view of that respondent No. 3 has vast resources and he cannot be recorded as an unemployed graduate. The allegations with regard to the obtaining of affidavits by the petitioner have been rebutted. It has also been pleaded that the father of respondent No. 2 is a Public Prosecutor and has a very lucrative practice and in view of that respondent No. 3 has vast resources and he cannot be recorded as an unemployed graduate. The allegations with regard to the obtaining of affidavits by the petitioner have been rebutted. Assertions have been made justifying the income of the petitioner and indicating that she is within the age limit to make the application for grant of dealership. Various other facts have also been disputed and certain documents have been brought on record to show that the income of the father of the respondent No. 3 is quite high. Quite apart from the above the procedure adopted by the Oil Selection Board has also been criticised. 11. An additional return has been filed by the respondent No. 3 to the rejoinder filed by the petitioner wherein it has been putforth that he had signed the application himself and nobody had signed on his behalf and he was present on the date of signing the application. It has also been reiterated that the petitioner's income is more than Rs. 50,000/- per year and that of the respondent No. 3 is much less than that amount. 12. A rejoinder affidavit has been filed by the petitioner to the Additional return of respondent No. 3 highlighting that the affidavit filed by the respondent No. 3 to the effect that he was in India on 1-3-1994 is untrue and based on mala fide. It has also been highlighted that the respondent No. 3 has not deliberately produced the passport which could have reflected whether he was in India or not. It has also been pleaded that the respondent No. 3 is the Vice-President of Idhan Kraya Vikraya Sahkari Samiti Maryadit which is a Society Registered under the Co-operative Societies Act and the sister-in-law of the said respondent is the President of the said Society which was carrying on business of Kerosene Oil, Sugar, Grains etc. 13. To the aforesaid rejoinder an additional return has been filed by the respondent No. 3 that the application submitted by the said respondent was properly entered into the register. It has also been pleaded that he has no income of his own and he has to depend upon the income of his father. 13. To the aforesaid rejoinder an additional return has been filed by the respondent No. 3 that the application submitted by the said respondent was properly entered into the register. It has also been pleaded that he has no income of his own and he has to depend upon the income of his father. With regard to production of passport it has been stated that respondent No. 3 is not a habitual visitor to foreign country and the passport is misplaced and on the same being traced it shall be produced for inspection of the Court. As far as the Managing Committee of the Co-operative society is concerned it has been stated that he was nominated as Vice President but he ceased to be the office bearer since 1995 and in any case the said Society did not earn any profit. 14. An additional rejoinder to the return of respondent No. 3 has been filed pointing out that entries in the register of India Oil Corporation cannot be proof of the personal presentation of the application by respondent No. 3. It has been pleaded that the respondent No. 3 was abroad on the date of submission of application and this information finds entry in the office record of Foreigner's Original Registration Office, Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg Hans Bhawan New Delhi. She had, therefore, written to the said office seeking information about the respondent No. 3 trips to foreign country. Copies of petitioner's request to the Foreigner's Regional Office have been brought on record as Annexure U 14 and U 15. It is stated that the petitioner was not supplied any information on the ground that the same could not be divulged to a private individual. It has been pleaded that as the respondent No. 3 had visited foreign countries on number of occasions it cannot be said that his yearly income is less than Rs. 50,000/-. In paragraph 6 of the said affidavit it has been stated that the respondent No. 2 has not stated true facts before this Court inasmuch as he had earlier stated that he had nothing to do with the Managing Committee of Idhan Kraya Vikray Sahkari Samiti Maryadit. 15. An application has been filed by respondent No. 3 taking additional documents on record. The said application includes copies of passport. Visa and entries made in the passport during January-1994 to April 1994. 16. 15. An application has been filed by respondent No. 3 taking additional documents on record. The said application includes copies of passport. Visa and entries made in the passport during January-1994 to April 1994. 16. A counter affidavit has been filed to the affidavit filed by respondent No. 3 highlighting that the document filed by the respondent No. 3 relate to the period October, 1994 to January 1995 whereas the relevant period is March 1994 and therefore, the conduct of respondent No. 3 is suspicious. 17. A further affidavit has been filed by the respondent No.3 indicating that he left New Delhi for America on 22-7-1993, and returned from U.S.A. on 6-9-1993. He left London for Delhi on 8-9-1993 and reached Delhi on 9-9-1993. Thereafter he left Delhi for Satna on 12-9-1993 and reached Satna on 13-9-1993 and appeared in the Law Examination as has been stated earlier. 18. To this affidavit a counter affidavit has been filed by the petitioner to highlight that the visit of respondent No. 3 to London and New York had cost him Rs. 93,660/- which is clearly indicative of the fact that respondent No. 3 has more income than what has been stated by him. A further affidavit has been filed showing the income of the respondent No. 3 and his relationship with Shri Chandraswami. In paragraph 8 of the said affidavit it has been highlighted that respondent No. 3 in the month of October, 1993 went to U.S.A. and came back only after 1-3-1994. It has been pleaded that the factum of his absence on 1-3-1994 has been collected from American Embassy and document to that effect has been brought on record as Annexure U. 22. The said document reflects that respondent No. 3 has entered U.S.A. in October 1993 and left U.S.A. in March, 1994 and that would clearly reveal that the affidavit filed before the Notary was a false one. 19. An affidavit has been filed by the petitioner commanding the respondent No. 3 to file the complete passport and visa. A reply has been filed wherein it has been mentioned that the respondent No. 3 has left Heathrow on 7-9-1993 and reached Delhi on 9-9-1993. It has been stated that there is no seal of Delhi Airport on 9-9-1993 and most often it happens that the Authorities allow a passenger to go out without putting a seal on the passport. A reply has been filed wherein it has been mentioned that the respondent No. 3 has left Heathrow on 7-9-1993 and reached Delhi on 9-9-1993. It has been stated that there is no seal of Delhi Airport on 9-9-1993 and most often it happens that the Authorities allow a passenger to go out without putting a seal on the passport. It has also been asseverated that the passport does clearly indicate that the visits by the respondent No. 3 were not at his cost. His relationship with Shri Chandraswami has also been disputed. 20. After this affidavit has been filed an additional affidavit has been filed by the petitioner reiterating that the respondent No. 3 was not at Raipur on the date of filing of affidavit or date of filing of application. It has also been putforth that the respondent No. 3 has taken long three years to produce the Xerox copy of the passport which shows his conduct. It has also been setforth that there is no evidence on record to show that the respondent No. 3 was in India on 1-3-1994. It has also been stated that the respondent No. 3 held a B-1 Business Visa which indicates that he could perform some gainful profession during his period of stay. It has also been highlighted that respondent No. 3 has earlier disclosed that he went to U.S.A. only once at the expenses of Mr. Deo Ketu but the material brought on record does reflect that he had gone on several occasions to abroad and he had concealed the said fact. A salary certificate has been brought on record to show that respondent No. 3 was working with Shri Chandraswami. A document containing in Annexure U. 26 has been brought on record to show that respondent No. 3 had obtained a business visa. 21. Now, I shall proceed to state the facts in W. P. No. 404/1996. The petitioner in this writ petition is a society. Kshetriya Vipran Sahkari Samiti Maryadit, Satna, registered under the Co-operative Societies Act, 1960. It is pleaded in the writ petition that pursuant to the advertisement the petitioner applied for grant of distributorship. 21. Now, I shall proceed to state the facts in W. P. No. 404/1996. The petitioner in this writ petition is a society. Kshetriya Vipran Sahkari Samiti Maryadit, Satna, registered under the Co-operative Societies Act, 1960. It is pleaded in the writ petition that pursuant to the advertisement the petitioner applied for grant of distributorship. Reference has been made to Clause 3 of the advertisement which stipulates that preference shall be given to a Co-operative Society and if such society is controlled by the State Government, restriction of annual income would not be applicable and in case of conditions are similar, the preference shall be given to the Co-operative society over all the categories of the persons including educated unemployed. As the petitioner satisfied all the conditions laid down in the aforesaid advertisement it applied for grant of distributorship and the petitioner through his president appeared before the interview Board. It is averred that the petitioner read from the newspapers published from 15-10-1995 and 17-10-1995 that the respondent No. 3 has been awarded the dealership due to influence of Shri Chandraswami. It is averred that the respondent No. 3 had not satisfied the conditions of eligibility for grant of dealership inasmuch as he was in U.S.A. at the time of submission of application and has more than Rs. 50,000/- of income per annum. The petitioner brought this fact to the notice of the various authorities by making representations. While criticising the action of the respondent No. 1, the Indian Oil Corporation Limited, it has been urged that the petitioner should have been granted dealership as it was to be given preference as per the terms and conditions of the advertisement. 22. A return has been filed by the respondent No. 2 contending, inter alia, that the selection of respondent No. 3 is just and proper and there has been no error in the same. It has been putforth that according to the rules and guidelines as prescribed by the Petroleum Ministry for selection of dealers the Co-operative Societies entitled to be given preference to the others if all other things are equal but in the case at hand, the petitioner-society was not equal as per merit. It has been putforth that according to the rules and guidelines as prescribed by the Petroleum Ministry for selection of dealers the Co-operative Societies entitled to be given preference to the others if all other things are equal but in the case at hand, the petitioner-society was not equal as per merit. It has also been stated that one of the conditions precedent meant for the society is that the society has to submit its balance sheet for the last three years certified by a Chartered Accountant and that society is of good financial condition in running the business in profit but in the present case such certificate was not produced and, therefore, the question of giving preference over respondent No. 3, did not arise. Other averments made in the writ petition have been disputed which read not be stated in detail as the allegations are similar as in W. P. No. 75/96. 23. A return has been filed by the respondent No. 3. contending, inter alia, that preference is to be given to a consumer co-operative society but the petitioner is a marketing society as per the Co-operative Societies Act. In paragraph 5 of the return it has been pleaded that in case of Co-operative Society according to the proforma, a copy of the certificate of registration signed by the Registrar, Co-operative Societies and certified from a Chartered Accountant stating that the Co-operative Society had made a net profit for the previous three consecutive financial years to the date of application were required to be filed. The petitioner as per the audit report sustained loss of Rs. 3,60,869,52/- in the year 1991; loss of Rs. 41,528.83 in the year 1991-1992 and suffered further loss of Rs. 2,11,056,83/- for the year 1993-1994 and Rs. 1,20,698.73/- for the year 1993-1994. The said documents have been brought on record. While making such averments all other allegations have been refuted. An Additional return has also been filed by the respondent No. 3 indicating certain facts with regard to his income, his father's status, inaction of the petitioner and such other aspects which need not be stated in detail. A counter reply has been filed by the petitioner to the additional retome filed by the respondent No. 3 highlighting the income of the respondent No. 3 and justifying the stand of the petitioner. A counter reply has been filed by the petitioner to the additional retome filed by the respondent No. 3 highlighting the income of the respondent No. 3 and justifying the stand of the petitioner. It has also been brought on record that the petitioner had raised objection in quite promptitude before the Selection Committee. 24. Now, I shall proceed to state the facts in W. P. No. 3749/96. In this writ petition initially challenge was made to the order of appointment of Rajesh Kumar Khandelwal as the dealer of the distribution of L.P.G. on temporary basis. After the preliminary objection was filed to the description of the respondent No. 3 indicating that Rajesh Kumar Khandelwal had nothing to do with the firm and grant has been given to M/s Auto Filling Station which is constituted by the partners, namely, Sharad Khandelwal and Mohanlal Khandelwal, the petitioner deleted the name of Rajesh Khandelwal and impleaded Mohanlal Khandelwal and Sharad Khandelwal. It has been averred in the said writ petition that appointment of the said firm as a temporary distributor is totally illegal and violates the earlier order passed by this Court. It has also been pleaded that this action has been taken by the respondent No. 1, Indian Oil Corporation to nullify to effect of the order of this Court. It has also been setforth that as there is no final appointment of distributor the temporary appointment should be quashed and the petitioner should be appointed as temporary dealer. 25. A return has been filed by the respondent Nos. 1 and 2. It has been averred that the appointment of respondent No. 3 firm was challenged in Writ Petition No. 3740/95 by the petitioner which was dismissed as infructuous as the petitioner did not press the petition because of challenge made by him by way of a fresh petition in view of subsequent irregular selection of the dealer and, therefore, the present writ petition is hit by the principles of res judicata. It has been also highlighted that a separate petition has been filed by the petitioner forming the subject matter of W.P. No. 75/96. It has been also highlighted that a separate petition has been filed by the petitioner forming the subject matter of W.P. No. 75/96. It is urged that the question involved in the present petition is only with regard to utility of ad hoc appointment till regular appointment is made and since the earlier petition has been dismissed and the main petition is pending for adjudication the present writ petition is devoid of substance. 26. A rejoinder affidavit has been filed to the return of the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 indicating that the petitioner had withdrawn the earlier writ petition as she was under the bona fide belief that a temporary arrangement for a very short period had been made but when she came to know from the return filed in W. P. No. 75/96 the temporary arrangement is continuing even after expiry of one year she has filed the present writ petition. It has also been putforth in the said rejoinder affidavit that no temporary agency can be awarded as per the guidelines of the Corporation. 27. I have heard Mr. M. L. Jaiswal, learned senior counsel along with Mr. P. K. Jaiswal, learned counsel for the petitioners in W. P. No. 75/96; and W. P. No. 3749/96 and Mr. A. G. Dhande for the petitioner in W. P. No. 404/1996. Mr. S. L. Saxena and Mr. R. N. Singh, learned senior counsel for the respondent No. 3 in the aforesaid two petitions, and Mr. V. P. Verma, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 in all the writ petitions and Mr. S. K. Dwivedi, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 in W. P. No. 3749/1996. 28. Mr. R. N. Singh, learned senior counsel for the respondent No. 3 in the aforesaid two petitions, and Mr. V. P. Verma, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 in all the writ petitions and Mr. S. K. Dwivedi, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 in W. P. No. 3749/1996. 28. Mr. Jaiswal, learned senior counsel for the petitioners has raised the following contentions : (a) the respondent No. 1 has erred in law by changing the terms and conditions for appointment which violates the order passed by this Court in the previous writ petition; (b) assuming the issuance of advertisement is justified in the facts and circumstances of the case, respondent No. 3 could not have been selected as he was not present on the date of filing of the affidavit and submission of application and was away in U. S. A. and false averments have been made indicating that he had sworn an affidavit and submitted an application himself and such false averments disentitle the said respondent to get the privilege; (c) the respondent No. 3 was ineligible as he had more than Rs. 50,000/- of income per annum as his fixed assets and frequent travels to abroad do clearly establish the same; (d) the respondent No. 3 being in employment of Shri Chandra Swami had been able to exert political influence to obtain the grant in his favour and, therefore, the same is liable to be struck down by this Court; and (e) the appointment of respondents No. 3 and 4 in W. P. No. 3749/1996 is unwarranted and not permissible in law. 29. Mr. Dhande, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in W. P. No. 404/1996 while raising similar contentions has further canvassed that the petitioner-society is entitled to be given preference and as the same has not been done the order of selection is bad and the distributorship should be granted in favour of the petitioner-society. 30. Mr. S. L. Saxena and Mr. R. N. Singh, learned senior counsel for the grantee have contended that he was very much in India on the date he had sworn the affidavit and there is no irregularity in submission of his application. 30. Mr. S. L. Saxena and Mr. R. N. Singh, learned senior counsel for the grantee have contended that he was very much in India on the date he had sworn the affidavit and there is no irregularity in submission of his application. It is also urged by them that the said respondent has no income of his own and because he had travelled abroad on many occasions on the basis of the tickets supplied by his relation it cannot be regarded as a circumstance to come to the conclusion that he had more than Rs. 50,000/- of income per annum. The learned counsel further canvassed that the said respondent had no connection with Shri Chandra Swami and even if there is, it cannot be presumed that the decision of the Selection Board was influenced by political pressure and, more so, reliance on newspapers clippings and photographs do not establish any nexus. The learned counsel for the respondent No. 3 referred to the original passport to highlight that the respondent No. 3 was in India and hence, the ground raised by the petitioner is totally without any foundation. They have also argued that the petitioner's income is more than Rs. 50,000/- per annum and, therefore, she is not entitled to be granted as per the terms and conditions of the advertisement. 31. Mr. Verma, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2, in his turn, has contended that the Selection Board's decision making process is valid and a decision has been taken by the Selection Board on the basis of the material available before it and no fault can be found in the decision making process. The learned counsel has also contended that the influence of Shri Chandra Swami in the Selection Board through any political agency is a figment of imagination of the petitioner and totally unsustainable. It has been putforth by Mr. Verma that the Selection Board had no occasion to doubt the affidavit sworn to by the respondent No. 3 and the application produced by him and, further in absence of production of any document indicating that income of the respondent No. 3 was more than Rs. 50,000/- per annum, the Board has rightly considered the case of the respondent No. 3 and found him fit. Answering the contentions raised by Mr. Dhande, Mr. 50,000/- per annum, the Board has rightly considered the case of the respondent No. 3 and found him fit. Answering the contentions raised by Mr. Dhande, Mr. Verma has contended that the society had not produced the documents as per the guidelines prescribed in the manual and, therefore, the society was not considered. With regard to interim arrangement it has been canvassed by Mr. Verma that as the earlier selection was set aside by this Court and the consumers had to be supplied the Corporation had no other option to appoint a temporary dealer to carry out the operation. 32. Before, I advert to the respective submissions raised at the Bar, it is necessary to state here that in course of hearing Mr. Jaiswal, learned senior counsel for the petitioner has fairly stated that whether issuance of fresh advertisement stipulating certain terms and conditions is violative of the direction of the earlier decision, need not be delved into in view of the new policy of the Petrolium Ministry. Learned senior counsel has also fairly accepted the position that use of political influence though has been pleaded, no nexus has been established. In view of the aforesaid aspects, I shall only confine myself to the other contentions raised by the learned counsel for the parties. 33. Presently, I shall advert to the contention whether the respondent No. 3 was present in India on 28-2-1994 when he had sworn the affidavit before the Notary. I have perused the affidavit which has been brought on record as Annexure R/2. On a scrutiny of the same it is apparent that the same was sworn to before the Notary at Satna. The learned counsel has time and again harped upon the fact that the respondent No. 3 was in U.S.A. on the date of swearing of the affidavit. Mr. On a scrutiny of the same it is apparent that the same was sworn to before the Notary at Satna. The learned counsel has time and again harped upon the fact that the respondent No. 3 was in U.S.A. on the date of swearing of the affidavit. Mr. Jaiswal has drawn the attention of this Court to three aspects, namely, that the photocopy of the passport including visa which has been produced as Annexure A/1 to the affidavit filed by the petitioner indicates that pages 6 to 11, 28, 29, 32 and 33 are missing; that in the affidavit dated 2-4-2000 sworn to by the respondent No. 3 it has been admitted in paragraph 4 that there is no seal of Delhi Airport on 9-9-1993 whereas in all circumstances no passenger is allowed to go out without a seal being put on the passport; and that the information obtained from the American Embassy contained in Annexure U/22 makes it categorically clear that the respondent No. 3 was not in India on 28-2-1994. This argument of Mr. Jaiswal has been combatted by Mr. Saxena highlighting that for the non-putting of the seal at Delhi Airport, the petitioner cannot be faulted and from that a presumption cannot be drawn that the respondent No. 3 had not arrived in India. Learned senior counsel has also produced the passport to show that pages are intact. As far as the information received from the American Embassy is concerned the learned counsel has seriously disputed the same. Having bestowed my anxious consideration to the submissions raised at the Bar, I am of the view that the assertion made by the petitioner cannot be overlooked. The cumulative effect of circumstances command that truth should be found out so that an untruthful person does not gain advantage or a person who is truthful to the Court is not condemned for nothing. For appreciation of the factual matrix in proper perspective, I think it apposite to reproduce the information given American Embassy. It reads as under :- “Name : Birendra Kumar Singh Sex : Male Date of Birth : 18th January, 1967. For appreciation of the factual matrix in proper perspective, I think it apposite to reproduce the information given American Embassy. It reads as under :- “Name : Birendra Kumar Singh Sex : Male Date of Birth : 18th January, 1967. Citizen : India Passport No.: M271572 Date of Issue : 9th September, 1992 Place of Issue : Bhopal UNITED STATES OF AMERICA VISA VNINDSINGH< M271572< Control No. : 1993176630002 Visa Issued at : New Delhi Issue Date : 25th June, 1993 Expiry Date : 24th June, 1998 Passport No.: M271572 Given Name : Birendra Kumar Singh Nationality : Indian Visa Type : R Status : Number of visits to U.S.A. Desired Status : Entry-October 1993 Exit - March 1994” 24. From the aforesaid information it appears that the respondent No. 3 left U.S.A. in March, 1994. If the said information is correct the respondent No. 3 could not have been at Satna to swear the affidavit before the Notary. Truth or falsity of the aforesaid information cannot be decided by this Court but the genuineness of the same has become essential to be found out as that has bearing upon this case. On a perusal of the passport produced by Mr. Saxena, it was not possible to arrive at the conclusion whether the respondent No. 3 was in India on 28-2-1994. Considering from all angles I thought it apposite that Central Bureau of Investigation, New Delhi should cause an enquiry in this regard and submit a report to the Oil Selection Board. For the aforesaid purpose I sought the presence of Mr. R. S. Patel, learned Standing Counsel for the Union of India who readily agreed that the Director of, C.B.I., New Delhi, should be asked to delegate a competent officer of the said organisation to find out from the American Embassy about the information given vide Annexure U/22 which has been quoted in paragraph 33. Accordingly, it is directed that the Director, C.B.I. shall approach the American Embassy with regard to issue of the aforesaid document and also collect further information with regard to genuineness of the same and sent a report to the Chairman, Oil Selection Board, 132, Maharana Pratap Nagar, Zone-II, Bhopal (M.P.). It is hereby made clear that the Oil Selection Board may also enter into correspondence with the Director, C.B.I., New Delhi to expedite the matter. It is hereby made clear that the Oil Selection Board may also enter into correspondence with the Director, C.B.I., New Delhi to expedite the matter. If upon inquiry it is found out that the contents of the Annexure U/22 is factually correct and the respondent No. 3 was not in India, on 26-2-1994, it would be absolutely clear that he had not sworn the affidavit on 28-2-1994 but on some other date. In that event, needless to emphasise, the case of the respondent No. 3 would not be considered by the Oil Selection Board for the simple reason he who builds an infrastructure on falsehood cannot be allowed to construct any superstructure. He must face the consequence of falsehood and the only consequence in the present case, is that he should be kept out of zone of consideration. 35. At this juncture, I would like to make it clear that as facts and circumstances necessitate I am adverting to the second ground of attack urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the counter attack blasted by the respondent No. 3. If it is eventually found out that the respondent No. 3 was not in India on 28-2-1994 his case shall not only be considered but he shall also not be allowed to putforth his case to substantiate his point with regard to his eligibility as regards the income. In that event, Oil Selection Board shall confine its inquiry to the income of the respondent No. 3 and take appropriate decision in the matter. 36. Let me now advert to the contention that the respondent No. 3 was not eligible because his income was more than Rs. 50,000/-. Mr. Jaiswal, learned senior counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court to various assertions and documents to highlight that the respondent No. 3 cannot be regarded as a person who has less than Rs. 50,000/- income per annum. I have bestowed my anxious consideration and perused the passport which was produced by Mr. Saxena, learned counsel for the respondent No.3. It is not disputed by him that the respondent No. 3 has travelled on number of occasions to U.S.A., Bangkok, Singapore and other places. Quite apart from the above the connection of the respondent No. 3 with the society, as has been indicated hereinabove has also been emphasised by Mr. Jaiswal, learned counsel for the petitioner. It is not disputed by him that the respondent No. 3 has travelled on number of occasions to U.S.A., Bangkok, Singapore and other places. Quite apart from the above the connection of the respondent No. 3 with the society, as has been indicated hereinabove has also been emphasised by Mr. Jaiswal, learned counsel for the petitioner. It is also noticeable that a document has been filed as per Annexure U/21 that the respondent No. 3 was working at Vishwa Dharma Ashram, New Delhi in the year 1992-1993 and 1993-1994. Learned counsel has also drawn the attention of this Court to Annexure U/6 and U/19 to show that the respondent No. 3 booked tickets along with other persons and, therefore, a presumption arises, that he was not sponsored by his relation but had travelled at his expenses. A reference has also been made to Annexure U/26 which deals with various types of visas and if the petitioner had availed the business visa then it has to be construed that he was having some employment in U.S.A. Mr. S. L. Saxena, learned senior counsel for the respondent No. 3 has also made reference to certain averments in the counter affidavit and the additional return to highlight that the petitioner's income is also more than Rs. 50,000/- per annum. The learned counsel has also referred to the medical store run by the petitioner and various incomes received from the house property. On a perusal of the pleadings of the parties and documents brought on record a factual dispute arises with regard to the income of the respondent No. 3 as well as that of the petitioner. Submission of Mr. Saxena is that if a person travels abroad on a number of occasion it cannot be inferred that he has income of Rs. 50,000 per annum. Though, the aforesaid submission is attractive but it requires scrutiny on the factual backdrop. Assertions have been made by the petitioner referring to certain documents that the respondent No. 3 has spent more than lacs of rupees by travelling abroad. The question that falls for determination is whether he has been sponsored by someone or he had spent from his own resources. This aspect cannot be totally marginalised. Similarly the assertions made by the respondent No. 3 with regard to the income of the petitioner from various sources cannot be totally over-looked. The question that falls for determination is whether he has been sponsored by someone or he had spent from his own resources. This aspect cannot be totally marginalised. Similarly the assertions made by the respondent No. 3 with regard to the income of the petitioner from various sources cannot be totally over-looked. The respondent No. 3 has also been able to point out various sources of income of the petitioner. This factual dispute cannot be resolved, by this Court. If these facts would have been brought before the Selection Board, it would have possibly taken a different decision. As the factual dispute with regard to income does exist, I am of the considered opinion that it would be apposite to direct the Selection Board to consider this aspect in proper perspective. The Board shall call upon the petitioner as well as the respondent No. 3 to file the material before it to satisfy whether they have less than Rs. 50,000/- income per annum. On consideration of the documents brought before it, it shall take a decision in that regard. It is hereby reiterated that aforesaid direction shall be given effect to in respect of respondent No. 3 if a finding is returned in his favour with regard to his presence in India on the relevant date. 37. To facilitate the enquiry by the C.B.I., let a copy of this order along with Annexure U/22 be sent to the Director, Central Bureau of Investigation, Central Government Official Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi and copy of the order be handed over to Mr. R. S. Patel, learned standing counsel for the Union of India, who will do the needful in this regard. It is expected that the competent authority of the American Embassy shall co-operate with the C.B.I. to unravel the truth. It is hoped that the exercise shall be completed within a period of two months from the receipt of this order. 38. Now to the contentions raised by Mr. A. G. Dhande, learned counsel for the petitioner in W. P. No. 404/96. Submission of the learned counsel is that the petitioner being a Co-operative Society was entitled to preferential treatment. It is hoped that the exercise shall be completed within a period of two months from the receipt of this order. 38. Now to the contentions raised by Mr. A. G. Dhande, learned counsel for the petitioner in W. P. No. 404/96. Submission of the learned counsel is that the petitioner being a Co-operative Society was entitled to preferential treatment. As has been indicated earlier the Society was required to file a certificate from a competent Chartered Accountant stating that the Co-operative Society has made net profit for the previous three consecutive financial years to the date of the submission of the application. I have perused the manual for selection of dealers and distributors, which has been brought on record as Annexure R-1/A. On a perusal of Clause 2.7.8 the aforesaid condition precedent is perceptible. The stand of the respondents No. 1 and 2 is that such a certificate was not filed by the petitioner. This fact has not been disputed. Filing of such a certificate was a condition precedent to be considered for selection and as the same was not satisfied by the petitioner, I am of the considered view the Selection Board was justified in not considering the case of the petitioner and, therefore, the stand of the petitioner that he was entitled to preference is same substance. 39. Now, to the contentions raised in W. P. No. 3749/96. Mr. Jaiswal, learned counsel for the petitioner made enormous efforts to assail the aforesaid order of grant on ad hoc basis and ordinarily I would have adverted to the said contentions but in view of the directions given in W.P. No. 75/96, I am of the considered view, the question of law raised need not be decided in this case as arrangements had been done in a bona fide manner and for public interest. However, it is made clear that as soon as the Selection Board decides the controversy and selects the person the ad hoc arrangement should be withdrawn forthwith and the grantee should be allowed to operate. 40. In the ultimate result, the writ petition No. 75/96 is disposed of with the directions contained in paragraphs 34, 35 and 36. The Writ Petition No. 404/1996 is dismissed and the Writ Petition No. 3479/96 is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs in any of the writ petitions.