JUDGMENT Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Gupta, J.—In pursuance of an advertisement dated 20.12.2010 issued by Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. inviting applications for opening of Kisan Sewa Kendra dealership at location Dugchadi District Saharanpur under PH category, the petitioner also submitted his application. He claims to have completed all the formalities and had appended several documents and certificates in proof of the facts stated in the application. Ultimately, he was called for interview on 11.10.2011, in which he duly appeared. When the result was declared, respondent No. 5, Amar Pal was placed at Serial No. 1, one Punit Agarwal at sl. No. 2 while the petitioner was declared ineligible on the ground that at the time of interview, he failed to produce the original pass-book of saving bank A/c No. 10473669637. Aggrieved by the aforesaid action of the Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., petitioner has filed the instant writ petition. 2. It appears that during pendency of the writ petition, the petitioner was served with an order dated 18.5.2012 passed by the Commercial Manager (RS), Indian Oil Corporation Ltd informing him that his complaint received by the Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. on 14.11.2011 against the first empanelled candidate, Amar Pal does not stand substantiated and is rejected. The said order was also subjected to challenge in the instant writ petition by filing an amendment application which was duly allowed. 3. In opposition to the writ petition, respondents 2 to 4 have filed a counter-affidavit. Separate counter-affidavit has been filed by the first empanelled candidate Amar Pal, respondent No. 5. 4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that there was no requirement of filing pass-book of saving bank account and he has been wrongly held ineligible on the said ground. He further submitted that in order to prove his financial capacity, the petitioner has submitted the statement of account of his saving bank account duly attested by the notary, and not the pass book and therefore it was not necessary to produce the original pass-book and he has been wrongly ousted from consideration on a ground which is wholly unsustainable in law. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. contended that according to the advertisement, originals of the documents/certificates which have been appended to the application are required to be produced in original at the time of interview. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. contended that according to the advertisement, originals of the documents/certificates which have been appended to the application are required to be produced in original at the time of interview. He further submits that the petitioner has filed photo stat copies of first two pages of saving bank A/c No. 104736696376 alongwith his application but he failed to produce the original pass book at the time of interview. The petitioner acknowledged the said fact in writing before the interview committee. According to counsel for Indian Oil Corporation, clause 8 (cha) of the advertisement enjoins upon a candidate to produce original documents/certificates at the time of interview. The petitioner having failed to comply with the said requirement, had disentitled himself for his candidature being considered. Accordingly, he sought to justify the stand of the Indian Oil Corporation. 7. Counsel for respondent No. 5 supported the arguments made by counsel for the Indian Oil Corporation. He further contended that the petitioner has not approached the Court with clean hands. According to him, the lease of the land which was offered by the petitioner for setting up petrol pump (Kisan Sewa Kendra) was cancelled on 15.10.2011. The said document has been brought on record by respondent No. 5 as Annexure CA-2. He submitted that it was a crucial fact and since the lease of the land which was offered by the petitioner in his application for setting up the petrol pump stands cancelled even before filing of the writ petition, and therefore, the said fact should in all fairness be disclosed by the petitioner. He submits that on this ground alone, the petitioner is not entitled to any discretionary relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Counsel for respondent No. 5 also drew the attention of the Court to the fact that the letter of intent was issued in favour of Amar Pal on 28.5.2012 and on basis thereof he has already set up Kisan Sewa Kendra. According to him, respondent No. 5 is running the petrol pump and is receiving supplies of petroleum product and as such it is not a fit case for exercise of discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in favour of the petitioner. 8. We have considered the rival submissions of the parties and have perused the record. 9. 8. We have considered the rival submissions of the parties and have perused the record. 9. Copy of advertisement has been brought on record as Annexure SA-1. Perusal of condition No. 7 of the advertisement reveals that an individual applicant should have a financial status of at least Rs. 7 lacs. It is evident from the application filed by the petitioner (Annexure 1 to the writ petition) that the petitioner under item No. 13 relating to source of finance had stated that he is having saving bank A/c No. 10473669637 in his name, in which he is having a credit balance of Rs. 7,93,233.33p. In support thereof, he appears to have filed alongwith his application two documents. First being the statement of account of saving bank A/c No. 10473669637 for the period 1.1.2009 to 2.2.2011, according to which a sum of Rs. 7,93,233.33p. stands to the credit of one Khacheru Singh. Name of the petitioner is not mentioned in the said statement of account. It appears that in order to link the aforesaid statement of account with himself, the petitioner brought on record the second document containing the first two pages of the pass-book of the said account and wherein his name is mentioned alongwith that of Khacheru. According to clause 8(cha) of the advertisement, all the documents/certificates which have been filed alongwith the application are to be produced in original at the time of interview. According to clause 8(cha) of the advertisement, all the documents/certificates which have been filed alongwith the application are to be produced in original at the time of interview. Relevant portion of clause 8 is as follows : lHkh nLrkost@izek.ki=ksa ds lEcU/k es] leFkZu nLrkostks dh izfr;ka izR;kf’k;ksa }kjk izR;sd i`"B ij fof/kiwoZd gLrk{kfjr dj ¼Lo;a lR;kfir½ izLrqr dh tkuh pkfg,A lHkh nLrkostksa @ izek.ki=ksa dh ewy izfr;ka lk{kkRdkj ds le;] ;fn cqyk;k tkrk gS rks izLrqr dh tkuh pkfg,] vU;Fkk vkosnd dks v;ksX; ?kksf”kr fd;k tk ldrk gSA ijUrq fuEu ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa lk{kkRdkj ds le; ewy nLrkost @ vfHkys[k ugha izLrqr dj ikus ij v;ksX; ugha Bgjk;k tk;sxk % ;fn izR;k’kh ¼dkjiksjs’ku }kjk vkadyu gsrq okaf{kr½ vius dFku @ nkos dh iqf"V@leFkZu gsrq fdlh vU; lEcfU/kr nLrkost dh ewy izfr izLrqr djrk gSA foRr lEcU/kh nLrkost tks vkosnu tek djus ds ckn ¼ijUrq lk{kkRdkj ls igys½ esP;ksj ¼ifjiDo½ gks x;s gksa] mudh iqf"V gsrq lEcfU/kr laLFkk ls nLrkost ds Hkqukus ds izek.ki= dh ewy izfr izLrqr dh tkrh gSA fdlh nLrkost ds xqe gks tkus ij l{ke vf/kdkjh }kjk tkjh dh x;h mldh vuqfyfi ¼nwljh izfr½ A Accordingly, the petitioner who alongwith his application had appended the photo stat copies of first two pages of saving bank account pass-book in order to link himself with the statement of account in the name of Khacheru Singh, was required to produce the original pass-book at the time of interview. However, petitioner admits that the pass-book was not produced before the interview committee and he also acknowledged the said fact in writing. The production of original pass-book by the petitioner at the time of interview was necessary to ascertain whether in fact the statement of saving bank account which is exclusively in the name of Khacheru has anything to do with the petitioner. In the absence of original pass-book having been produced before the Indian Oil Corporation, it was not in a position to co-relate the petitioner with the statement of account in the name of Khacheru. Thus, the financial capacity of the petitioner could not be judged. 10. It has not been the case of the petitioner that he comes under any of the exceptions mentioned in clause 8(cha) of the advertisement, where non-production of the original documents or certificates could be dispensed with. 11. Thus, the financial capacity of the petitioner could not be judged. 10. It has not been the case of the petitioner that he comes under any of the exceptions mentioned in clause 8(cha) of the advertisement, where non-production of the original documents or certificates could be dispensed with. 11. In view of the above discussion, Indian Oil Corporation was fully justified in rejecting the candidature of the petitioner on the ground of non-production of the original pass-book of the saving bank account and no exception can be taken to the stand of the Indian Oil Corporation in this regard. 12. There is another aspect of the matter. In the entire writ petition, the specific plea taken by the petitioner is that there is no stipulation in the advertisement that the pass-book of saving bank account is to be furnished and it is for the said reason that it was not filed. He concealed the fact that alongwith his application he did file the attested copy of first two pages of the pass-book in order to link his name with the statement of account which only mentions the name of Khacheru Singh. The said fact has been brought on record by way of counter-affidavit filed by the Indian Oil Corporation. Petitioner has failed to rebut the said assertion, inspite of several opportunities being granted to him. Evidently, petitioner has not disclosed full and correct facts before this Court and has filed incomplete copy of his application and by withholding two pages of the saving bank account which he infact had filed alongwith his application, has made a deliberate attempt to conceal material facts and documents from this Court. Thus, the claim of the petitioner before this Court is based on misleading assertions and suppression of material facts and on account of which, the petitioner has further dis-entitled himself to any discretionary relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 13. The counsel for respondent No. 5 has further contended that the petitioner has also suppressed the factum relating to cancellation of lease of land which was offered by him for setting up the petrol pump. This fact has not been rebutted by the petitioner by filing any affidavit inspite of several opportunities. However, we do not consider it necessary to go into the said question in view of the findings on other issues which are sufficient to non-suit the petitioner. This fact has not been rebutted by the petitioner by filing any affidavit inspite of several opportunities. However, we do not consider it necessary to go into the said question in view of the findings on other issues which are sufficient to non-suit the petitioner. 14. Before parting, it may be brought on record that though by means of amendment application, petitioner has challenged the order dated 18.5.2012 whereby his complaint against the first empanelled candidate Amar Pal was rejected but at the time of hearing of the writ petition, counsel for the petitioner has not made any submission in this regard. In such circumstance, this Court is not going into the validity and correctness of the order dated 18.5.2012. 15. No other contention has been raised by the counsel for the petitioner. The writ petition lacks merit and is dismissed. No orders as to cost. —————