ORDER This writ petition is filed for a mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in cancelling the dealership awarded to the petitioner for Mothe retail outlet at Karimnagar District vide proceedings Ref. No. SDOIKSK/Mothe, dated 20.10.2011 of respondent No. 2 as illegal and arbitrary. 2. In response to the notification issued by the respondents, the petitioner applied for appointment as a retail outlet dealer of Kisan Seva Kendra, Mothe, Karimnagar District. After the interviews were held on 24.6.2011, the petitioner, along with 26 others, was short-listed at the selection. The petitioner was placed at S1.No.1 of the merit list. Following the field inspection, the Senior Divisional Retail Sales Manager of the respondents-Corporation issued the impugned proceeding whereby he has cancelled the selection of the petitioner as the retail outlet dealer. Feeling aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed this writ petition. 3. A perusal of the impugned proceeding shows that the first of the two grounds on which the cancellation of the dealership was made was that the petitioner has filed bank statement dated 10.7.2010 along with his application dated 22.7.2010 showing a balance of Rs.15,06,000/- in his savings bank account, but the field verification revealed that as on the date of the petitioner's application i.e., 22.7.2010, his bank balance in the savings account was only Rs.1,55,458/-. It is stated in the impugned order that the petitioner has withdrawn substantial amounts from his savings bank account between 10.7.2010 and 22.7.2010 and thereby misrepresented to the respondents by showing the bank balance as Rs.15,06,000/-. The second ground mentioned in the impugned order is that the petitioner failed to produce the original pattadar passbook in respect of the land offered by him for establishment of the retail outlet and that according to the petitioner the same is with the Deccan Grameena Bank in connection with availing of crop loan. 4. A detailed counter-affidavit has been filed wherein the above mentioned grounds contained in the impugned order have been reiterated. It is further alleged that the petitioner has deliberately misrepresented the facts and therefore his selection was cancelled in terms of clause 17 of the guidelines of the Corporation. 5. At the hearing, Sri Ch. 4. A detailed counter-affidavit has been filed wherein the above mentioned grounds contained in the impugned order have been reiterated. It is further alleged that the petitioner has deliberately misrepresented the facts and therefore his selection was cancelled in terms of clause 17 of the guidelines of the Corporation. 5. At the hearing, Sri Ch. Venu Kumar, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, strenuously contended that the withdrawal of money from the petitioner's bank account has occurred without his knowledge and that the respondents have not taken into consideration various other amounts lying in the name of either himself or his parents to the tune of about Rs.57,43,451/-. He has further submitted that the original pattadar passbook in respect of the land is not under mortgage; that since the respondents have not insisted on production of the same, it was not produced, and that the petitioner is ready and willing to produce the original pattadar passbook. 6. Sri MA. Hameed, learned Counsel representing Sri Deepak Bhattarjee, learned Standing Counsel for the Indian Oil Corporation, submitted that as the petitioner deliberately misrepresented to the respondents by filing the bank statement which did not reflect the correct financial position as on the date of filing his application, the respondents were justified in withdrawing the petitioner's selection. 7. Note (a) of the notification issued by the respondents calling for applications for setting up of the retail outlets at all the notified locations, envisages a minimum HSD (Diesel) potential as 25 KL/month and the estimated investment required as Rs.10 lakhs. It is obviously to satisfy the respondents about the capacity of the petitioner to invest Rs.10 lakhs that the latter has filed the bank statement dated 10.7.2010. Admittedly, the petitioner has applied for the dealership on 22.7.2010, but he has filed the bank statement as on 10.7.2010. As against the sum of Rs.15.06 lakhs available as balance as on 10.7.2010, there was Ii meager balance of Rs.1,55,458/- as on the date of filing of the application by the petitioner. It is not possible to believe the plea of the petitioner in this regard that withdrawals from his bank account were made without his knowledge between 10.7.2010 and 22.7.2010. It is not the pleaded case of the petitioner that somebody has impersonated him and withdrew the amounts from his bank account. It is not possible to believe the plea of the petitioner in this regard that withdrawals from his bank account were made without his knowledge between 10.7.2010 and 22.7.2010. It is not the pleaded case of the petitioner that somebody has impersonated him and withdrew the amounts from his bank account. In all fairness, the petitioner ought to have disclosed the correct bank balance as on 22.7.2010 when he has made the application for allotment of the retail outlet. I have therefore no hesitation to hold that the petitioner has indulged in misrepresentation of fact by filing the bank statement which did not reflect the correct available balance position in his savings bank account as on the date of filing of the application. 8. The submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the respondents ought to have taken into consideration the other amounts lying in the bank is without any merit. The respondents are primarily concerned with the conduct of the petitioner. Even otherwise, a cursory glance at the tabular statement given by the petitioner in his application would show that most of the amounts available in fixed deposits of various banks were in the name of his father and mother. At any rate, if the petitioner was confident of getting selected with these amounts, he would not have indulged in the act of filing the bank statement dated 10.7.2010 knowing well that the balance shown therein was not available on 22.7.2010. This conduct on the part of the petitioner certainly disentitles him from being appointed as a retail outlet dealer by the respondents-Corporation. 9. With regard to the second ground on which the impugned order was passed, namely, the failure of the petitioner to produce the original pattadar passbook, I do not find any illegality therein. The fact remains that the petitioner failed to produce the original pattadar passbook and title deed in respect of the land offered by him. The plea of the petitioner that the respondents have not insisted upon production of the original of the same appears to have been raised in despair. When the petitioner claims ownership over the site offered for establishing the retail outlet, it is his duty to produce the original document relating to the same. Even in the writ petition, the petitioner has not produced the original pattadar passbook and title deed of the land in question. When the petitioner claims ownership over the site offered for establishing the retail outlet, it is his duty to produce the original document relating to the same. Even in the writ petition, the petitioner has not produced the original pattadar passbook and title deed of the land in question. Therefore, I have no reason to disbelieve the version of the respondents that the petitioner has informed the former that the original title deed is with the Deccan Grameena Bank in connection with sanction of crop loan. On a careful consideration of the reasons for which the petitioner's selection was cancelled, I am of the opinion that the impugned order does not suffer from any illegality or arbitrariness calling for interference of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 10. For the above mentioned reasons, the writ petition is dismissed. 11. As a sequel, WPMP No. 40073/2012 filed for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous.