Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 797 (GAU)

Shilpa Khakholia v. Union of India

2011-09-23

A.K.GOSWAMI

body2011
JUDGMENT A.K. Goswami, J. 1. By this application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for striking out of the name of the Respondent No. 6, who has been placed as the First Preferred Candidate in the Merit List dated 15.12.2010 for award of LPG Distributorship at Hojai with a prayer for a further direction to the respondent Corporation to place the petitioner as first preferred candidate for the said distributorship and to issue letter of intent as well as final order for awarding such LPG Distributorship in favour of the respondents. The case of the petitioner is that she is an educated unemployed lady. An advertisement was issued in an English daily newspaper, namely, "The Assam Tribune" on its 1st December, 2009 issue by the Respondent No. 2 and two other Companies for award of LPG Distributorship at 17 places in the State of Assam. 7 locations out of aforesaid 17 places including that of Hojai under SL. No. 12 of the said advertisement was relatable to Respondent No. 2. The LPG. Distributorship at Hojai was meant for Open (Woman), for short OP(W). The writ petitioner responded to the said advertisement by submitting her application with all related documents for award of the said LPG Distributorship. She was called for interview to be held on 15.12.2010 and, accordingly, she and many other candidates had appeared before the Selection Committee and on that very date, a Merit List was prepared by the Selection Committee in order of merit. The petitioner having secured 92.37 marks, was placed at 2nd position and the Respondent No. 6 was placed in the 1st position showing that she had obtained 93.33 marks. 2. It has been stated that the husband of the Respondent No. 6, Sri Bokul Das, Proprietor of M/S Ganesh Industries, had been operating a Gas Agency at Hojai by entering into a Memorandum of Understanding with Assam Co-operative Marketing & Consumers Federation Limited, hereinafter referred to as the "STATFED" on 20.7.2004 for a period of 10 years and, therefore, she did not fulfil the criteria as stipulated in clause 4.4 of the "Brochure on Selection of Bharatgas (LPG) Distributors" for short "Brochure" as well as clause 2(e) of the advertisement inasmuch as no individual would be entitled to a new dealership/distributorship, if any other individual in a "family unit" already holds LPG dealership/LPG distributorship etc. It has further been stated that the Respondent No. 6 in her application had offered the same plot of land to be used as godown for storage of LPG Cylinders at Hojai, from where the husband of the Respondent No. 6 was already carrying on his business from the existing godown thereon and, therefore, the said godown being not free from encumbrance, the Respondent No. 6 had not fulfilled clause 9 of the Brochure as well as paragraph 11 of the advertisement dated 1.12.2009. Additionally, it is also stated that the Respondent No. 6 suppressed the actual status of the said land comprised in dag No. 183 of patta No. 9, village/town Hojai. Averments have been made that though the Respondent No. 6 had mentioned in her application that her husband is the owner of the aforesaid plot of land over which the godown is located, her husband is neither the owner of the said plot of land nor the same belongs to any member of her family and as a matter of fact, the said plot of land is an Annual Patta land recorded in the name of one Sri Prafulla Singh and Smt. Kotheloi Devi and this amounts to gross suppression of material fact. It has also been stated that the marking pattern prescribes 25 marks to be awarded to an applicant who owns a plot of land. The Respondent No. 6 was awarded 25 marks, to which she was not entitled to and at best, the Respondent No. 6 would have been entitled to 18 marks instead of 25 marks. If 7 marks are deducted it would result in Respondent No. 6 securing 88.33 marks, relegating her to 3rd position and in that scenario, the writ petitioner would have emerged as first preferred candidate. In respect of capacity to arrange finance, the Respondent No. 6 had listed details of Fixed Deposit Certificates, National Savings Certificates, Kishan Vikash Patras, some of which were neither free nor unencumbered, but were pledged against the financial assistance availed of by the husband of the Respondent No. 6. It is stated that furnishing of wrong information and suppression of information warrants cancellation of distributorship in terms of clause 4.5. (d) and clause 23 of the Brochure. It is stated that furnishing of wrong information and suppression of information warrants cancellation of distributorship in terms of clause 4.5. (d) and clause 23 of the Brochure. Allegations are also made that the Selection Committee had shown undue favour to the Respondent No. 6 by awarding her maximum possible marks so as to place her in the first position in the Merit List. 3. The Respondent No. 6 had filed an affidavit wherein she stated that pursuant to the cancellation of registration of the STATFED in the year 2006, the STATFED, by letter dated 16.6.2006, had withdrawn the lease deed with regard to the plot of land covered by dag No. 183 of patta No. 9. The distributorship of the STATFED was also terminated by order dated 28.9.2010 issued by the Indian Oil Corporation Limited. Though the husband of the petitioner had challenged the said termination order by filing WP(C) No. 6254/2010, the same was withdrawn on 23.2.2011. The allegation of petitioner that she stands disqualified in terms of clause 4.4 of the Brochure was denied. It is also stated that apart from the plot of land covered by dag No. 183 of patta No. 9, she had offered two other plots of land and, therefore, there was no illegality in respect of award of marks in respect of the land. The allegation of the petitioner that she had submitted encumbered Fixed Deposit Certificates, National Savings Certificates and Kishan Vikash Patras was also denied. 4. By filing a reply affidavit, the writ petitioner has stated that the husband of the Respondent No. 6 is operating an LPG dealership and she had been granted a Gas Licence under the Gas Cylinder Rules, 2004 on 9.3.2005 with its validity upto 30.9.2013. By filing an additional affidavit, the writ petitioner has asserted, that by taking recourse to Right to Information Act, 2005, the petitioner had come to learn that 11 Nos. of National Savings Certificates and 4 Nos. of Fixed Deposit Certificates issued by the United Bank of India are encumbered and the respondent authorities, without verifying the documents furnished by the Respondent No. 6, awarded her 35 marks, to which she was not entitled to. of National Savings Certificates and 4 Nos. of Fixed Deposit Certificates issued by the United Bank of India are encumbered and the respondent authorities, without verifying the documents furnished by the Respondent No. 6, awarded her 35 marks, to which she was not entitled to. The Respondent No. 6 responded by filing an affidavit-in-opposition to the additional affidavit of the writ petitioner wherein, while denying the allegation levelled against her regarding issuance of licence on 9.3.2005, stated that the said licence, in fact, was issued in the name of the Branch Manager, STATFED on 9.3.2005 and the said licence came to be transferred in her name by an order dated 4.3.2011 of the Deputy Chief Controller of the Explosives. It has further been stated that in the advertisement dated 1.12.2009, it was not indicated that the Fixed Deposit Certificates, National Savings Certificates/Kishan Vikash Patras should not be pledged or charged with anyone and in any view of the matter, the amount of the Fixed Deposit Certificate, the National Savings Certificates, Kishan Vikash Patras which are encumbered is very insignificant. She had provided information for arranging fund to the tune of Rs. 32.78 lakh and a candidate is entitled to get full marks i.e. 18 marks, if he/she is able to provide supporting documents of Rs. 18 Lakhs. 5. An affidavit-in-opposition has been filed on behalf of the Respondent Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 5. In the said affidavit, it was asserted that the selection of the Respondent No. 6 has been done in a fair and transparent manner and she had been found to be the most suitable candidate. It has been stated that the distributorship had been commissioned in dag No. 183 of patta No. 9 as per direction of the State Government till the new godown is constructed on the land in dag No. 713 of patta No. 213 and the said distributorship was catering approximately to 800 customers. It has further been stated that M/S Indian Oil Corporation Limited by letter dated 17.1.2011 had confirmed that it did not have any distributor named Bakul Das at Hojai, i.e. the husband of the Respondent No. 6. It has further been stated that M/S Indian Oil Corporation Limited by letter dated 17.1.2011 had confirmed that it did not have any distributor named Bakul Das at Hojai, i.e. the husband of the Respondent No. 6. The Respondent No. 6 had offered 3 plots of land including the plot of land in dag No. 183 of patta No. 9 and that the Company had issued letter of intent dated 21.2.2011 to make available the LPG Godown, not in the plot of land covered by dag No. 183 of patta No. 9, but in the plot of land measuring 27 mts x 26.5 mts for storing LPG cylinders. The respondents also admitted the transfer of the Licence in favour of the Respondent No. 6 in the said affidavit and it has been stated that the letter of appointment was issued on 12.3.2011 and the distributorship was commissioned on 14.3.2011 under the name and style of M/S Baba Ganesh Bharat Gas Service, Hojai. In respect of the Fixed Deposit Certificates/National Savings Certificates/Kishan Vikash Patras, it has been stated that on Field Verification of Credentials, for short, (FVC), as the Respondent No. 6 could not show some of the original Fixed Deposit Certificates/National Savings Certificates/Kishan Vikash Patras, such certificates and deposits for which no original was produced, were not taken into consideration and the revised capability to provide finance was worked out to be Rs. 22,91,533/- from the earlier Rs. 31,72,371/-, as furnished by the Respondent No. 6. Based on the aforesaid, marks were awarded to her as per Brochure. 6. By filing an affidavit-in-reply to the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 5, while reiterating the statements made in the writ petition, the petitioner has stated that the letter dated 12-01-2011 addressed to the Deputy General Manager (NESO) and the letter dated 17-01-2011 issued by the Indian Oil Corporation should not be taken into consideration as these letters have been issued after the preparation of merit list on 15-12-2010 and on that date, the Memorandum of Understanding dated 20-07-2004, being very much in force, the selection of the respondent No. 6 is illegal. It is also stated that the guidelines do not provide for award of LPG distributorship at a particular plot temporarily and thereafter, to shift to a different plot of land. It is also stated that the guidelines do not provide for award of LPG distributorship at a particular plot temporarily and thereafter, to shift to a different plot of land. During FVC, the officers of the corporation had shown undue favour to the respondent No. 6, in order to cover up the lapses of the respondent No. 6 as well as illegal selection made by the selection committee by allowing the respondent No. 6 to obtain statutory approval to construct another godown in dag No. 713, patta No. 213 under Lonka mouza. 7. I have heard Mr. S.S. Dey, learned counsel for the petitioner. I have also heard Mr. M.K. Choudhury, learned senior counsel appearing for the Respondent No. 1 as well as Mr. P.J. Saikia, learned counsel appearing for the Respondent Nos. 2 to 5. 8. Mr. S.S. Dey, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent No. 6 is debarred even from applying for LPG Distributorship, let alone being offered a distributorship in view of her husband having a subsisting and ongoing LPG Distributorship, clause 4.4 of the Brochure will come into play. He has also submitted that the Jamabandi of the plot of land covered by dag No. 183, patta No. 9, which plot of land the Respondent No. 6 offered at serial No. 1 in her application, showing it to be belonging to her husband, would falsify her such claim and would conclusively prove that the said plot of land stands in the name of one Prafulla Singh and Smti. Kotheloi Devi and to that extent there is suppression of material facts. It is also his contention that the Respondent No. 6 has taken recourse to falsehood in respect of her disclosure in connection with her capacity to provide finance. 9. Though the applicants were required to provide information of unencumbered Fixed Deposit Certificates, National Savings Certificates, Kishan Vikash Patras, etc., the Respondent No. 6, in the list supplied by her, had included number of National Savings Certificates and Fixed Deposit Certificates, which were encumbered. It has also been submitted by him that the Respondent No. 6 was allotted marks to which she was not entitled to in terms of the parameters laid down. Even after such undeserving allotment of mark, the difference of mark in between the petitioner and the Respondent No. 6 was only 0.96. It has also been submitted by him that the Respondent No. 6 was allotted marks to which she was not entitled to in terms of the parameters laid down. Even after such undeserving allotment of mark, the difference of mark in between the petitioner and the Respondent No. 6 was only 0.96. He submits that the Respondent No. 6 was entitled to, at the most, 18 marks in respect of land though she was awarded 25 marks. But for such illegal and undeserving award of mark in favour of Respondent No. 6, the petitioner would have been the First Preferred Candidate. Mr. S.S. Dey had forcefully argued that furnishing of false information and suppression of material fact resorted to by the Respondent No. 6, having regard to the provisions contained in clause 4.5(d) read with Clause 23 of the Brochure, the candidature of the Respondent No. 6 ought to have been rejected. Even in this proceeding, the Respondent No. 6 has not been able to provide any explanation with regard to the suppression of material facts and on the contrary, has tacitly admitted such mis-representation and suppression. The respondent authorities, instead of cancelling the allotment of distributorship, had condoned the same to show undue favour. 10. Mr. M.K. Choudhury, learned senior counsel for the respondent No. S, submits that the argument of Mr. Dey, learned counsel for the petitioner is ill founded and misconceived. The result was announced by publishing merit list dated 15-12-2010 and such result was known to the writ petitioner. The respondent No. 6 was given the letter of intent on 21-02-2011 and the writ petition came to be filed on 07-03-2011. On the date of motion on 09-03-2011, an affidavit was filed by the respondent No. 6 bringing on record the fact the letter of intent was already issued. Notwithstanding that the writ petitioner had not challenged the same and therefore, he submits the writ petitioner is not entitled to any relief. It is his contention that the husband of the respondent No. 6 was never a distributor or a dealer but was only an agent of the STATFED. Placing reliance on the affidavit-in-opposition dated 25-04-2011 filed against the additional affidavit, he submits that all along the licence stood in the name of the Branch Manager, Hojai, STATEFED and the same only stood transferred in her name on 04-03-2011. Placing reliance on the affidavit-in-opposition dated 25-04-2011 filed against the additional affidavit, he submits that all along the licence stood in the name of the Branch Manager, Hojai, STATEFED and the same only stood transferred in her name on 04-03-2011. It is also submitted that the licence was issued to such Branch Manager on 09-03-2005 and it cannot be said that the respondent No. 6 was a licencee from that date. When the respondent No. 6 or her husband was never a dealer or a distributer, the embargo imposed by clause 4.5 is not attracted. With regard to the plot of land, Mr. Choudhury submits that the respondent No. 6 had made available three plots of land. He justifies that there is nothing wrong in indicating that the plot of land at serial No. 1 of her application was owned by Shri Bakul Das inasmuch as there was an unregistered document permitting occupation over the said plot of land coupled with a possession certificate, over which he had constructed a godown to be used by him as an agent of the STATFED. In this connection, he contends that in respect of two other plots of land there is no controversy and therefore, the selection committee had rightly awarded 25 marks. He submits that there is no suppression and that the respondent No. 6 did not derived any undue benefit and therefore, the authorities, on consideration of relative merits of the parties concerned, rightly empanelled her as the first preferred candidate and accordingly, issued the letter of intent and subsequently, the order of appointment in her favour. With regard to the aspect relating to her capacity to provide finance, his contention is that respondent No. 6 had listed 56 numbers of securities and the respondent No. 6 was having more than 32 lakhs and even if the encumbered securities are taken out of consideration, she still has more than Rs. 20 lakhs and as such is entitled to full marks. By drawing reference to the additional affidavit filed on 15-09-2011, Mr.Chodhury submits that the respondent No. 6 was instructed by letter dated 28-02-2011 of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Hojai to commence the distributorship in the existing godown in the plot No. 1. In the meantime, by spending about Rs. 20 lakhs and as such is entitled to full marks. By drawing reference to the additional affidavit filed on 15-09-2011, Mr.Chodhury submits that the respondent No. 6 was instructed by letter dated 28-02-2011 of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Hojai to commence the distributorship in the existing godown in the plot No. 1. In the meantime, by spending about Rs. 5 lakhs, she had constructed a godown in the 3rd plot of land which stood in her name and the distributorship is operating from the godown from 19-08-2011. Mr. Chodhury also submits that the, Brochure being not a statutory guideline, even if there is some deviation, no mandamus would lie to enforce such guidelines. 11. Mr. PJ. Saikia learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 5, while endorsing the submission advanced by the learned senior counsel for the respondent No. 6, by producing the record submits that the respondent had conducted the selection in a most fair and transparent manner. He has also submitted that the allegation of the writ petitioner that the respondent have shown undue favour to the respondent No. 6 is wholly unfounded and such allegation are made only for the purpose of this case. He has also submitted that the award of marks in respect of the candidates have been done strictly in accordance with the provision contained in the Brochure and the selection committee, taking all relevant aspects of the matter into consideration and following the guideline, empanelled the respondent No. 6 as first preferred candidate. He also vehemently denied the allegation that the respondent No. 6 resorted to misrepresentation and suppression of material facts. 12. The submission advanced by the learned counsel for the parties have received due consideration of this Court. I have perused the pleadings of this case and have also gone through the records containing two files made available to this Court by Mr. Saikia. 13. 12. The submission advanced by the learned counsel for the parties have received due consideration of this Court. I have perused the pleadings of this case and have also gone through the records containing two files made available to this Court by Mr. Saikia. 13. In order to appreciate the contention of the learned counsel for the parties, it will be appropriate to reproduce clause 4.4, clause 4.5, clause 9 and clause 23 of the Brochure: 4.4 MULTIPLE DISTRIBUTORSHIP NORM (RELATIONSHIP CLAUSE) Multiple Dealer/Distributorship norms means that none of the individuals would be entitled to a new dealership/distributorship if any other individual in a 'family unit' already holds a dealership/distributorship or LOI for a dealership/distributorship of a PSU oil company i.e. Only one Retail Outlet/SKO dealership/LPG distributorship of PSU oil company will be allowed to a 'family' unit. Family unit in case of married person/applicant, shall consist of individual concerned, his/her spouse and their unmarried son(s)/daughter(s). In case of unmarried person/applicant, 'Family Unit' shall consist of individual concerned, his/her parents and his/her unmarried brother(s) and unmarried sister(s). 4.5 : DISQUALIFICATION: The following are not eligible. (a) Persons convicted or against whom charges have been framed by a Court of law for any criminal offence involving moral turpitude/economic offences (other than freedom struggle). (b) Totally paralysed, mentally unsound and Totally Blind persons. (c) Signatory to agreement of a distributorship/dealership of any oil company terminated on the grounds of adulteration/malpractice in the past. (d) If any person is allotted the distributorship by giving wrong information or by suppression of information, it shall be cancelled. 9. CONSTRUCTION OF GODOWN/SHOWROOM ON THE SITE AS MENTIONED IN APPLICATION FORM. The applicants who readily have suitable godown/land for construction for storage of filled LPG cylinders and shop/land for construction of shop for showroom for setting up of LPG distributorship or have a firm commitment from the land owner for purchase/lease or can arrange it are awarded marks. The details given in the application alone will be considered for this purpose and the applicant will not be given any opportunity to offer any other land subsequently (Even at the time of interview). For this purpose, the land owned by the family members as defined in eligibility criteria would also be considered as belonging to the applicant. The details given in the application alone will be considered for this purpose and the applicant will not be given any opportunity to offer any other land subsequently (Even at the time of interview). For this purpose, the land owned by the family members as defined in eligibility criteria would also be considered as belonging to the applicant. In case the land is owned by the family members, an affidavit for giving consent has to be given by the family member (s) as per the format given in the Application Form. After selection of the applicant, physical verification of the godown land/godown as well as the showroom will be undertaken. In the event it is found that there is a variation in the details submitted in the application and or the plot is not found suitable for construction of godown/showroom allotment of the distributorship can be cancelled. Or after selection, if applicant for any reason is unable to construct Godown duly approved by the Chief Controller of Explosives on the land/godown indicated in the application and or Showroom as per the Oil Company's standard layout on the land/shop indicated in the application, then allotment of LPG distributorship made to the applicant will automatically stand cancelled. If the candidate has expressed that he can arrange for the land for godown/showroom , then if selected, the same has to be arranged within two months from date of issue of LOI failing which the LOI may be cancelled. 23. FURNISHING OF FALSE INFORMATION If any information furnished by the applicant is found to be false at any point of time before or after appointment as a dealer, the allotment shall be cancelled forthwith and distributorship terminated in case commissioned. 14. Clause 14 of the Brochure provides for norms for evaluating candidates. There are seven parameters provided. One of the parameters for evaluating the candidates is capability to provide infrastructure and facilities and 35 marks is the maximum marks that can be awarded to an applicant. In respect of capability to provide finance, which is also another parameter, 35 marks is the maximum marks that can be awarded. The 35 marks in respect of both the aforesaid parameters are again divided into sub-headings indicating allocation of marks. In respect of land for LPG storage godown/godown, an applicant who owns plot of land having clear title, with registered sales/lease/gift deed, mutation etc. The 35 marks in respect of both the aforesaid parameters are again divided into sub-headings indicating allocation of marks. In respect of land for LPG storage godown/godown, an applicant who owns plot of land having clear title, with registered sales/lease/gift deed, mutation etc. is entitled to 25 marks and an applicant having agreement to purchase/lease suitable land/godown is entitled to 18 marks, These marks are to be allotted based on the information/statement given in the application form. In respect of capacity to provide finance, for the sub-head "financially sound-Funds", maximum 18 marks is allowed and a candidate having an amount of Rs. 18 lakhs in Saving Accounts in bank as on the date of application or having free and unencumbered fixed deposits in scheduled banks or any other documents which can be readily converted to liquid cash to cover working capital/infrastructure requirements as on date of advertisement is entitled to 18 marks. 15. It will be only proper to indicate that paragraph 2(e) and paragraph 11 of the advertisement which has been relied on by Mr. Dey is reproduction of clause 4.4 and clause 9, respectively of the Brochure. 16. Bearing in mind the argument of Mr. Dey, it would be necessary to first take up the point as to whether the respondent No. 6 was not entitled to even apply in view of clause 4.4 inasmuch as if the answer is in the affirmative, the other issues would be redundant Clause 4.4 visualizes that only one Retail Outlet/SKO dealership/LPG distributorship of PSU Oil Company will be allowed to a 'family unit' which is also defined in the said clause. Materials on record do not establish that the husband of the respondent No. 6 was ever granted any dealership/distributorship. Materials on record indicate that the husband of the respondent No. 6 was only an agent of STATFED. The licence was issued to the respondent No. 6 on 04-03-2011. The licence was originally issued, as would be demonstrated by documents furnished by the competent authority to the Branch Manager, STATFED on 9.3.2005. Further, clause 4.4 only provides that an individual would not be entitled to a new dealership/distributorship if any other individual in a family unit already holds a dealership/distributorship and the clause does not, per se, prohibit filing of application. Reading of provision contained in clause 4.5 could also indicate the same position. Further, clause 4.4 only provides that an individual would not be entitled to a new dealership/distributorship if any other individual in a family unit already holds a dealership/distributorship and the clause does not, per se, prohibit filing of application. Reading of provision contained in clause 4.5 could also indicate the same position. In view of the aforesaid, the contention of Mr. Dey fails. 17. The next question that would be relevant to be considered is as to whether there is misrepresentation and suppression of material fact so as to invite the provisions of clause 4.5 and clause 23 of the Brochure. 18. Serial No. 13-A 1 of the application for LPG distributorship reads as follows : Do you have a suitable land at or within 15 km from the advertised location for LPG godown readily available Owned/Leased (15 years minimum) in your own name or in the name of any member of 'Family Unit'? In response to this question, the respondent No. 6 had provided details of three plots of land. Without indicating whether owner of land/leaseholders, in respect of the first two plots of land, name of Mr. Bokul Das was mentioned and with regard to the third plot of land, she had mentioned her own name. The dimensions of the land were also indicated. Distance from Hojai Police Station in respect of the first plot of land was stated to be 2 kms, and in respect of the other two plots of land, 5 kms and 5.5. kms, respectively. The first plot of land is covered by dag No. 183, patta No. 9. In the column meant for Date of Registration of sale deed/mutation/gift/lease, in respect of the first plot of land, it is written as 10-04-94. Materials on record would indicate that Bokul Das, the husband of the respondent No. 6 had not purchased the plot identified by the respondent No. 6 at serial No. 1. Record produced by the respondent Nos. 2 to 5 discloses that the respondent No. 6 had produced certain unregistered documents permitting occupation of Shri Bokul Das in the said plot of land Admittedly, there is gross suppression of material fact by the respondent No. 6 in that there was no registered sale deed or registered lease deed. Record produced by the respondent Nos. 2 to 5 discloses that the respondent No. 6 had produced certain unregistered documents permitting occupation of Shri Bokul Das in the said plot of land Admittedly, there is gross suppression of material fact by the respondent No. 6 in that there was no registered sale deed or registered lease deed. Another aspect of the matter which is striking is that the writ petition filed by the husband of the petitioner challenging the order of termination dated 28-09-2010 was withdrawn on 23-02-2011, two days after the letter of intent was issued in favour of the respondent No. 6. It is also established that the respondent No. 6 had submitted in the list to demonstrate her capacity to arrange finance, 11 numbers of encumbered National Saving Certificates and 5 numbers of encumbered Fixed Deposit Certificates. It is also an admitted position that the respondent No. 6, could not produce the originals of such certificates at the time of verification. Mr. Choudhury is correct that in the advertisement it was not specifically mentioned that the certificates should not be in any way encumbered. However, in the advertisement, it was indicated that original investment documents are to be provided by the applicant at the time of verification. The respondent No. 6 was not in possession of the original investment documents which were encumbered. The respondent No. 6, in paragraph 10 of the affidavit-in-opposition had also, in respect of the allegations made in paragraph 11 of the writ application, boldly asserted that the so fixed deposits listed by her were free from encumbrances. The real picture emerged only when the writ petitioner brought materials in a subsequent affidavit clearly demonstrating that 11 National Saving Certificates and 4 Fixed Deposit Certificates were encumbered. 19. Whether without the plot of land listed at serial No. 1 and the unencumbered Fixed Deposit Certificates, National Saving Certificates, Kishan Vikash Patras, the respondent No. 6 could have still got highest mark is, in the considered opinion of the Court, not a relevant consideration. This Court will not hazard a guess for what purpose, suppression and misrepresentation was taken recourse to. The evaluation of marks as per clause 14 of the Brochure is based on the information given in the application. This Court will not hazard a guess for what purpose, suppression and misrepresentation was taken recourse to. The evaluation of marks as per clause 14 of the Brochure is based on the information given in the application. In that view of the matter, correct disclosure of fact is a pre-requisite and there has to be sanctity in such information and disclosure. Whether one derived benefit by making such misrepresentation and suppression, is not consequential. 20. In the affidavit filed by the respondent Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 5 it has been stated that plot Nos. 2 and 3 were found suitable for putting up an LPG godown and that the letter of intent was issued to make available LPG godown in the plot of land measuring, 17 mtrs. x 26.15 mtrs. It is to be noted no such land with such dimension was provided by the respondent No. 9. It is also not understood on what basis statement-had been made in the affidavit that the land alleged to be encumbered, meaning thereby the plot at serial No. 1, belongs to Shri Bokul Das. 21. When the award of marks is given on the basis of information supplied in the application, due importance has to be given to field verification. Clause 4.5 stipulates that if any person is, allotted the distributorship by giving wrong information or by suppression of information, it shall be cancelled. Clause 23 provides that if any information furnished by the applicant is found to be false at any point of time before or after appointment as a dealer, the allotment shall be cancelled forthwith and distributorship terminated in case commissioned. It would appear in the facts and circumstances of this case that in spite of a Parent furnishing of false information, the same was glossed over though it should have merited rejection of the candidature of the respondent No. 6 before her appointment as a dealer. 22. The submission of Mr. Choudhury that the writ petitioner having not challenged the letter of intent as well as the letter of appointment, the writ petitioner is not entitled to any relief, cannot be sustained. This Court, by order dated 09-03-2011, had indicated that till the interim matter is heard and disposed of, any action pursuant to the letter of intent dated 21-02-2011 shall be subject to the outcome of the writ petition. This Court, by order dated 09-03-2011, had indicated that till the interim matter is heard and disposed of, any action pursuant to the letter of intent dated 21-02-2011 shall be subject to the outcome of the writ petition. The matter was taken up for final disposal at the admission stage on the request of the learned counsel for the parties. The submission of Mr. Choudhury that the guidelines contained in the Brochure do not have any statutory force and therefore, a writ of mandamus will not lie is not tenable. The guidelines contained in the Brochure lays the norms by which distribution of state largesse would be undertaken. There has to be fairness and transparency in such exercise. The authorities are also obliged to follow the norms and guidelines laid down. The writ Court can certainly step in when the decision making process is vitiated. 23. In view of the foregoing discussion, the selection of respondent No. 6 as the first preferred candidate is cancelled and the respondent Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 5 are directed to take such steps as are granted in accordance with law. Such steps shall be taken and completed within a period of three months from today. 24. The writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. No costs.