A. K. SIKRI, J. ( 1 ) RESPONDENT No. 3, namely. , Hindustan petroleum Corporation Limited had issued public notice/advertisement on 18th April, 1995 inviting application for retail outlet/ dealership of petrol pump. Terms and conditions, for allotment of retail outlet dealership, as stipulated in the advertisement were as under: " (a) None of the close relatives viz. Spouse/father/mother/son/daughter/ sister/brother-in-law/daughter-in-law/parents- in-law held dealership/distributorship of any oil company for any petroleum product in india. (b) The applicant or any of his above mentioned relations had earlier not been issued a letter of intent/appointment for any dealership or agency by any oil company in india for any petroleum product. (c) The gross income of the applicant and his spouse and children put together does not exceed Rs. 50,000/- p. a. (d) No charge has been framed against the applicant nor any court has ever convicted him for any criminal case involving moral turpitude and for any economic offence nor any such proceedings are pending against the applicant. (e) The applicant should be the permanent resident of Delhi and for which a residence certificate signed by a Revenue officer not below the rank of Tehsildar or deputy Tehsildar stating that the applicant has been a resident of the District for a period not less than 5 years immediately preceding the date of application. ( 2 ) PURSUANT thereto on 15th May, 1995 the petitioner submitted his application for allotment of retail outlet. Other including the respondent No. 4, also applied. It is a matter of common knowledge that the Oil Selection boards are constituted for selection of the applicants for allotment of such retail outlets. Respondent No. 2/ Oil Selection Board (Delhi) [for short the Board ] interviewed the applicants and recommended the name of respondent No. 4. On this recommendation, respondent No. 3 issued Letter of Intent (hereinafter referred to as "loi ) on 16th february, 1996 in favour of respondent No. 4 offering him retail outlet dealership at Dehil- north West, Delhi or any other location thereabout where the site is being made available by the land owning authorities. Terms and conditions on which this LOI was issued, were also contained therein. One of such terms contained in para 2. Terms and conditions on which this LOI was issued, were also contained therein. One of such terms contained in para 2. 8 stipulated that the LOI would stand automatically withdrawn and cancelled on happening of certain events mentioned therein and para (b) stipulated the following event: " (B) If it is found that you have suppressed and/or misrepresented any material facts in your application. " ( 3 ) THE petitioner in this writ petition has challenged allotment in favour of respondent no. 4 on the ground that respondent No. 4 was not eligible to be considered as he was hot fulfilling two of the eligibility conditions, namely (a) respondent No. 4 had wrongly disclosed his annual income as Rs. 36,000/- whereas it was more than Rs. 50,000/- and the document produced by him in support of his annual income was false, (b) He was not permanent resident of Delhi and was in fact resident of Chandigarh and he had submitted false certificate in this behalf as well. ( 4 ) IT is further stated in the writ petition that as information given by the respondent No. 4 was false, as per para 2. 8 of the LOI dated 16th February, 1996 his dealership was liable to be cancelled. ( 5 ) IT is also stated in the writ petition that although LOI was issued on 16th February, 1996, dealership of the petrol pump had not commenced as neither the actual site in this regard was allotted nor other formalities like verifications of empaneled candidate had been done to the knowledge of the petitioner. The petitioner has accordingly made prayer to the effect that allotment in favour of respondent No. 4 be cancelled and LOI be issued in favour of petitioner. ( 6 ) ADMITTEDLY, respondent No. 4 had filed, alongwith his application, resident certificate dated 12th May, 1995 issued by the Tehsildar certifying that respondent No. 4 had been a resident of 2/a-1, Sector 8, Rohini, Delhi for last five years. Mr. Sunil K. Mittal, learned counsel appearing for petitioner submitted that it was a false certificate as respondent No. 4 was a permanent resident of Chandigarh. In support of this submission, he referred to voters list 1995 of Chandigarh Lok Sabha Constituency which is annexed as Annexure-G wherein name of respondent No. 4 appears at S. No. 843 alongwith his other family members. In support of this submission, he referred to voters list 1995 of Chandigarh Lok Sabha Constituency which is annexed as Annexure-G wherein name of respondent No. 4 appears at S. No. 843 alongwith his other family members. He also referred to Annexure-E filed along with the writ petition which is income tax return filed by respondent No. 4 and the same is filed with income tax office, Ward No. 3 for the accounting year 1994-95 at Chandigarh and address of respondent No. 4 is shown as SCF, 28-29, Sector 29-C, Chandigarh. ( 7 ) REFERRING to same income tax returns, he pointed out that as per the said return respondent No. 4 had disclosed his income of rs. 43,699/- under the head "profit and Gains from Business and Profession" and the income tax returns further showed that he was a partner in the firm, B. R. Advertising Service at chandigarh. As per this income tax return for the accounting year 1994-95, interest income was shown as Rs. 322/- and thus total income declared was Rs. 43,699/ -. It was submitted that respondent No. 4 along with his application had furnished certificate dated 12th may, 1995 issued by M/s Aggarwal Metal industries 894/3, Swaran Park, village mundkar Opp. R. R. Dharmkanta, Delhi and as per this certificate respondent No. 4 was employed with said M/s. Aggarwal Metal industries during the accounting year 1994- 95 and was paid salary at the rate of rs. 3,000/- per month amounting to rs. 36,000/ -. Submission of this certificate by respondent No. 4 is not in dispute. Thus, argued, by Mr. Mittal that if the two incomes one as per this certificate and other as per income tax returns filed by respondent No. 4 are added the same would be more than rs. 50,000/ -. Alternatively, it was that the respondent No. 4 had not disclosed his income as shown in income tax returns which was rs. 43,699/- and thus he had given false information about his income and the LOI was liable to be cancelled on this ground also. ( 8 ) MR. RAKESH Tiku, learned counsel for respondent No. 4 argued that the petition raises disputed questions of facts which cannot be gone into by this court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the constitution of India. ( 8 ) MR. RAKESH Tiku, learned counsel for respondent No. 4 argued that the petition raises disputed questions of facts which cannot be gone into by this court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the constitution of India. He further submitted that since public notice/advertisement for inviting applications for allotment by respondent No. 3 was issued on 18th April, 1995 income for the period prior to that date was material for the purpose of considering the application for dealership and in these circumstances certificate from M/s Aggarwal metal Industries was produced showing the income of respondent No. 4 as Rs. 36,000/ -. Regarding resident, Mr. Tiku further submitted that certificate of Tehsildar as produced by respondent No. 4 at the relevant time was not false. His submission was that electoral roll could not be an authentic proof of one s residence as there would be innumerable instances where a person has left a place, his name keeps on appearing in the electoral roll. Similarly, it may not be necessary that every person s name may be on the electoral roll so as to establish his residency. Likewise, a person may keeps on filing his income tax return from a particular place, (Chandigarh in the instant case) even when he has shifted to some other place, only to avoid inconvenience. Therefore according to mr. Tiku, all these were disputed questions of facts which could not be gone in this writ petition. ( 9 ) BEFORE dealing with the aforesaid submissions, we may note that in the affidavit filed on behalf of respondent No. 2, it is stated that at the time of examining the applications, the documents submitted by the applicants are taken on their face value and no verification/investigation into these documents is done. As, on the basis of documents submitted by respondent No. 4, he was fulfilling the eligibility conditions and was found suitable, his case was recommended and placed at Sr. No. l of the empanelled candidates. Respondent No. 3 has also taken similar stand in its counter affidavit stating that the Board recommended panel of two persons, namely, respondent No. 4 at S. No. 1 and petitioner at S. No. 2. ( 10 ) NO doubt this court in a writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India would not go into the disputed questions of facts. ( 10 ) NO doubt this court in a writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India would not go into the disputed questions of facts. However, the documents produced by petitioner which are not denied by respondent no. 4 would show that there is hardly any disputed question of fact. The respondent no. 4 has not been able to satisfactorily explain away the documents relating to income. The respondent No. 4 has admitted the genuineness of the income tax returns disclosing his income from the business and has admitted that he had furnished certificate from M/s Aggarwal Metal Industries showing his salaried income of Rs. 36,000/ -. In his counter affidavit, he has made the following averments in this behalf: "the public notice was issued in the instant case on 18. 04. 95 and as such for the purpose of financial potential and period prior to 18. 04. 95 was material for the purpose of considering the application for dealership. The petitioner has annexed annexure E to the writ petition showing the income of the assessment year 1995-96 which will correspond to the financial year 1994- 95 where the income shown is less than Rs. 50,000/ -. It is submitted that the petitioner was working for the relevant period with M/s Aggarwal Metal industries and was providing service to them, for which, he was being paid monthly remuneration. It was not employment in strict sense for the said concerned. The respondent No. 4 was granted about Rs. 36,000/- per annum as earlier the respondent No. 4 had been staying in Chandigarh therefore, returns were filed there only. The amount of rs. 43,699/- indicated in the said return for the assessment year 1995-96 corresponding to financial year 1994-95 is exclusive of the earnings that the petitioner had from M/s Aggarwal Metal industries. " ( 11 ) THE aforesaid averments clearly show that as per respondent No. 4 he was working with m/s Aggarwal Metal Industries during the financial year 1994-95 from where he earned rs. 36,000/ -. He further admits that amount of Rs. 43,699/- indicated in the income tax return for financial year 1994-95 is "exclusive" of the earnings that the respondent No. 4 had from M/s Aggarwal Metal Industries. 36,000/ -. He further admits that amount of Rs. 43,699/- indicated in the income tax return for financial year 1994-95 is "exclusive" of the earnings that the respondent No. 4 had from M/s Aggarwal Metal Industries. ( 12 ) IT may be relevant to point out that when the arguments were heard on 27th january, 2003 and judgment reserved, aforesaid averments made in the counter affidavit were not pointed by any of the counsel which were noted by the court while dictating the judgment. Therefore, it was felt appropriate to list the matter for directions so that the respondent No. 4 is given a chance to make his submission regarding these averments. The matter was accordingly listed for directions on 31st January, 2003 when learned counsel for the respondent No. 4 was apprised of these averments made in the counter affidavit. He took time to look into the matter. On 5th February, 2003, when the matter was listed for hearing, learned counsel for the respondent No. 4 submitted that there is a typographical error and the word exclusive appearing in last but one line of aforesaid para was wrongly typed whereas it should have been inclusive . He sought time to file an affidavit of the respondent no. 4 in this behalf. Direction was given to the respondent No. 4 to file details of income shown as per income-tax return for the assessment year 1995-96 alongwith affidavit. He was also directed to file collateral documentary evidence submitted on the basis of which annexure-F was issued by the Tehsildar certifying that he was resident of Delhi for the last five years. The respondent No. 4 took some time in filing this affidavit which was filed on 24th March, 2003 when further arguments vere heard and judgment reserved. ( 13 ) IN the affidavit dated 24th March, 2003 the respondent No. 4 has averred that his brother namely, Sh. Vikram Bansal had floated a concern called M/s B. R. Advertising Service at Chandigarh and made its first business transaction in November, 1993. His brother was mainly looking after the said work and the respondent No. 4 had only made certain contribution by way of capital investment by borrowing loans for which he was also required to pay interest to the creditors. His brother was mainly looking after the said work and the respondent No. 4 had only made certain contribution by way of capital investment by borrowing loans for which he was also required to pay interest to the creditors. The purpose of investing capital in the said company was to help his brother and the respondent No. 4 did not work as such in the said company. It is also alleged that for the purpose of accounting, the interest on the capital was being credited to the account of the respondent No. 4. Some salary was also being shown in the account -by the said M/s b. R. Advertising Services at Chandigarh although he did not work for it. This concern was being actually managed and run his brother. The respondent No. 4 had been working with M/s Aggarwal Metal Industries and he could not have been working on both places. The respondent No. 4 has tried to explain that partnership deed dated 7th April, 1995 was written, i. e. on a date prior to the date of application for dealership wherein his salary is reduced to Rs. 1,000/- per month and interest component in favour of the respondent No. 4 was also deleted. For the next year i. e. 1st April, 1996 the salary input was totally deleted and salary of brother of the respondent No. 4 was increased to rs. 10,000/ -. Both the partnership deeds are annexed. It is also explained that on the date when the respondent No. 4 had applied for dealership, tax returns had not been filed by that time which was filed only in August, 1995. According to the respondent No. 4 since the amount was being reflected for the previous year, therefore, it was so shown by the Chartered Accountant in the annual returns copy of which is at page 23 of the writ petition. According to the respondent no. 4 it could be an accounting mistake. ( 14 ) THIS explanation given by the respondent no. 4 is totally unconvincing and clearly an afterthought. The respondent No. 4 is now trying to explain away the averments made in the counter affidavit and extracted above and in the process trying to give the explanation which does not inspire any confidence. 4 it could be an accounting mistake. ( 14 ) THIS explanation given by the respondent no. 4 is totally unconvincing and clearly an afterthought. The respondent No. 4 is now trying to explain away the averments made in the counter affidavit and extracted above and in the process trying to give the explanation which does not inspire any confidence. Even as per the respondent No. 4 income tax return was filed after he submitted his application for dealership with the respondent No. 1. How, in this income tax return, there could be an accounting mistake of the nature as alleged by the respondent no. 4, is beyond comprehension. This income tax return is signed by the respondent No. 4. The explanation sought to be given is that when the respondent No. 4 was working with 223 m/s Aggarwai Metal Industries there was no question of his working at both the places i. e. Delhi and Chandigarh. It amounts to begging the question. It is for the respondent No. 4 to explain as to how he was working with M/s aggarwai Metal Industries when he was partner with M/s B. R. Advertising Services was working there also. It appears that he has procured the certificates from M/s Aggarwai Metal industries in order to show that he was working in Delhi so that he becomes eligible to make application for dealership. ( 15 ) THEREFORE, I am not convinced with this afterthought stand of the respondent No. 4, when confronted with averments made in the counter affidavit, to say that the word exclusive was a typing error and it should have been inclusive . Even otherwise, it cannot be so as income tax return shows income of Rs. 43,699/- for the assessment year 1995-96 from M/s B. R. Advertising services. If the respondent No. 4 was working with M/s Aggarwai Metal Industries also on the basis of which he filed the application, this income of Rs. 36,000/- has to be in addition to the income of Rs. 43,699/ -. 43,699/- for the assessment year 1995-96 from M/s B. R. Advertising services. If the respondent No. 4 was working with M/s Aggarwai Metal Industries also on the basis of which he filed the application, this income of Rs. 36,000/- has to be in addition to the income of Rs. 43,699/ -. ( 16 ) THUS, in the aforesaid circumstances, there could be only two possibilities, namely (a) the respondent No. 4 was not working with M/s Aggarwai Metal Industries and the certificate of earning procured is false and in that case he was not eligible to apply for the dealership or (b) presuming that he was working with M/s Aggarwai Metal Industries then as per his own admission contained in the counter affidavit, his income for financial year 1994-95 (assessment year 1995-96) was Rs. 36,000/- from M/s Aggarwai Metal industries and Rs. 43,699/- from business which was exclusive of the earning from M/s aggarwai Metal Industries. These incomes therefore have to be added and the income of respondent No. 4 would exceed much beyond Rs. 50,000/ -. Moreover it would mean that false income tax return was filed by him. ( 17 ) THUS in both the situations, the respondent No. 4 was not eligible to apply for dealership. ( 18 ) THERE is yet another aspect of the matter which is to be highlighted at this stage. In the income tax returns for the financial year 1994- 95 income shown by respondent No. 4 is from "profit and Gains from Business and profession". This fact is not mentioned in the application made to respondent No. 3 for allotment of retail outlet. It is thus a clear case of concealment of material fact. ( 19 ) IT may be mentioned here that I had summoned the original records relating to allotment of dealership of petrol pump in question. The application form which was to be submitted for dealership is on prescribed format. Such an application running into 10 pages is submitted which is dated 22nd May, 1995. Column 9 is regarding income and it is mentioned that affidavit as per Appendix-A to income duly attested by the Magistrate/ judge or Notary Public is to be filed. The application form which was to be submitted for dealership is on prescribed format. Such an application running into 10 pages is submitted which is dated 22nd May, 1995. Column 9 is regarding income and it is mentioned that affidavit as per Appendix-A to income duly attested by the Magistrate/ judge or Notary Public is to be filed. Detailed instructions are given in this behalf which are as under: The candidate should carefully note that the declaration of Annual income is an important document, which has a vital bearing on his/her eligibility for dealership/ distributorship. If any information given by him/her in the declaration of Annual Income is found to be untrue, incorrect or false, his/ her application is liable to be rejected at any stage. In case Letter of Intent has been issued or the dealership has been commissioned, the same is liable to be withdrawn or the dealership/distributorship may be terminated. In such cases, the candidate/dealer shall have no claim whatsoever against Hindustan petroleum Corporation Ltd. In the case of applicants having an independent source of income, he/she has to indicate details of income under each of the columns (I to IX as provided in the Income Declaration Form) against the column of "self". If he/she is married, then indicate details of income under each of the columns (I to IX as provided in the Income Declaration Form) against the column "wife/husband". If he/she has dependent children, then indicate details of income under each of the columns (I to IX as provided in the income Declaration form) against the column "dependent Children". In case the applicant does not have his/her own source of income and is dependent on his/ her parents, then he/she has to indicate details of income under each of the columns (I to IX as provided in the Income Declaration Form) against the column "father" and against the column "mother". If the income is "nil" in respect of any of the column/s, it should be specifically stated and under no circumstances the column/s should be left blank. Broad guidelines, but no exhaustive, obtaining at present to verify income from various sources are given below so that the applicant should exercise all care in giving the precise information under each column of the Income declaration. The candidate should bring all original documents for verification at the time of interview. Broad guidelines, but no exhaustive, obtaining at present to verify income from various sources are given below so that the applicant should exercise all care in giving the precise information under each column of the Income declaration. The candidate should bring all original documents for verification at the time of interview. Where the applicant is an Income tax Assessee, the details of the income as shown in the Annual Income Declaration should conform to those indicated in the income tax return for the relevant financial year and the Assessment Order of the Income tax Officer thereon. " ( 20 ) EVEN if the respondent No. 4 was a dormant partner, which is a case sought to be made now, he was still admittedly an income tax assessee and therefore he was bound to disclose these facts as per the aforesaid instructions. It is not the case of the respondent No. 4 that he did not file income tax return for the earlier year. However, he suppressed the fact regarding his being partner in M/s B. R. Advertising Services and that he had earned some income therefrom as well. Therefore, even if the affidavit of the respondent No. 4 is taken on its face value, it is a clear case of concealment of material facts. ( 21 ) ONE also fails to understand as to why income salary of Rs. 36,000/- which respondent No. 4 allegedly earned from M/s aggarwal Metal Industries is not disclosed in the income tax returns. It was income earned from salaries and should have been indicated in the said return. Therefore, one can draw inference in the absence of any clarification, that the certificate from M/s Aggarwal Metal industries showing that respondent No. 4 was employed therein has been procured for the purpose of showing resident of Delhi. ( 22 ) FURTHER by order dated 5th February, 20-03 the respondent No. 4 was also directed to file collateral documentary evidence submitted by him on the basis of which he got certificate from the Tehsildar to the effect that he was resident of Delhi for the last five years. The respondent No. 4 has failed to produce any such evidence. Therefore, adverse inference has to be drawn against him and possibly even this certificate is also procured on the basis of some misstatements. The respondent No. 4 has failed to produce any such evidence. Therefore, adverse inference has to be drawn against him and possibly even this certificate is also procured on the basis of some misstatements. ( 23 ) FROM the aforesaid, following conclusion is clearly discernible: (A) Respondent No. 4 did not indicate his income correctly by producing certificate from M/s Aggarwal Metal industries as he suppressed his income of Rs. 43,699/- as indicated in his income tax return and even he admits in the counter affidavit that he had earned this amount in the said financial year 1994-95. (b) The information given by respondent no. 4 in his application is clearly false. ( 24 ) THE inevitable conclusion which results from aforesaid discussion is that the respondent No. 4 was not eligible and consequently entitled to the grant of retail outlet/dealership of petrol pump. LOI dated 16th February, 1996 issued in his favour is hereby quashed. ( 25 ) RULE is made absolute. The respondents 2 and 3 are directed to consider as to who would be the person entitled for the aforesaid dealership on the basis of applications received and panel prepared, after the name of the respondent No. 4 is excluded. This consideration be made and decision taken within a period of two months from today. The respondent No. 4 shall also pay cost of this writ petition to the petitioner which is quantified at Rs. 15,000/ -. ( 26 ) THE writ petition stands disposed of.