Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1206 (HP)

Surya Filling Station v. Indian Oil Corporation

2015-09-01

RAJIV SHARMA

body2015
Judgment : Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Applications were invited for the retail petrol outlet at Village Nagni situated on the State Highway 39 on the Palampur-Shimla Highway on 11.2.2004. Petitioner also participated in the selection process. Petitioner was issued interview letter for 12.8.2004. Letter of intent was issued in favour of the petitioner on 3.9.2004. An agreement was entered into between the parties on 18.9.2004. Show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 30.4.2013. She filed reply to the same. Retail outlet dealership was terminated vide Annexure P-14 on 24.2.2014. 2. Case of the petitioner precisely is that she got married with one Sh. Rajesh Thakur alias Rohit on 15.12.2003 at Chamunda Mandir in presence of their parents and relatives. However, since the marriage was solemnized hurriedly, some ceremonies were held on 30.11.2007 and the marriage was again solemnized on this date. The marriage was entered in the Gram Panchayat by their relations and they were not aware about previous marriage, which led to the overall confusion and the date in the Panchayat records has also been corrected to 15.12.2003 and also the name of husband was wrongly entered in the Gram Panchayat records as Rakesh instead of Rajesh. 3. The letter of intent, as noticed hereinabove, was issued on 3.9.2004. The agreement between the parties was entered on 18.9.2004. Clause 28 of the application form reads as under: “If any information/declaration given by me in my application or in any document submitted by me in support of my application for the award of RO dealership or in this undertaking shall be found to be untrue or incorrect or false, M/s IBP Co. Ltd. would be within its rights to withdraw the Letter of Intent/terminate the dealership (if already appointed) and that I would have no claim, whatsoever, against M/s IBP Co. Ltd. for such withdrawal/termination.” 4. Para 6 of the affidavit dated 10.3.2014 reads as under: “If any information/declaration given by me in my application or in any document submitted by me in support of my application for the award of RO dealership or in this undertaking shall be found to be untrue or incorrect or false, M/s IBP Co. Ltd. would be within its rights to withdraw the Letter of Intent/terminate the dealership (if already appointed) and that I would have no claim, whatsoever, against M/s IBP Co. Ltd. for such withdrawal/termination.” 5. Ltd. would be within its rights to withdraw the Letter of Intent/terminate the dealership (if already appointed) and that I would have no claim, whatsoever, against M/s IBP Co. Ltd. for such withdrawal/termination.” 5. Clause 45 (1) of the Dealership Agreement dated 18.9.2004 lays down as under: “Notwithstanding anything to the contrary herein contained, the erstwhile IBP now Corporation shall be at liberty at its entire discretion to terminate this Agreement forthwith upon or ast any time after the happening of any of the following events namely….(i) If any information given by the dealer in his application for appointment as dealer or in any document supplied herewith or filed in support thereof shall be found to be untrue or incorrect.” 6. Mr. Dushyant Dadwal, learned counsel for the petitioner, has vehemently argued that the marriage of the petitioner was solemnized on 15.12.2003 and not on 30.11.2007. However, while making entry in the Panchayat record, name of husband of petitioner as Rakesh has been wrongly incorporated. He has also contended that there is violation of principles of natural justice. 7. Mr. K.D. Sood, learned Senior Advocate, has vehemently argued that the marriage of the petitioner in fact was solemnized with one Sh. Rakesh Kumar on 30.11.2007 and the earlier marriage was shown to have been solemnized only to get herself eligible for the retail outlet with intention to show separate family. He has also contended that petitioner’s mother was already a partner in the SKO Agency M/s Goverdhan Singh and Sons, Hamirpur, H.P. 8. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the pleadings carefully. 9. Petitioner has not led any tangible evidence to establish that she was married on 15.12.2003 with Rajesh Thakur alias Rohit. Once the petitioner had already married, there was no occasion for her to again marry as per Hindu rites on 30.11.2007. In the Panchayat records, name of the petitioner’s husband has been recorded as Rakesh and the marriage has been solemnized on 30.11.2007. The plea of the petitioner that the relations did not know about the previous marriage solemnized on 15.12.2003 cannot be believed. The entry in Pariwar register is made by a public servant in the discharge of his official duties. 10. The plea of the petitioner that the relations did not know about the previous marriage solemnized on 15.12.2003 cannot be believed. The entry in Pariwar register is made by a public servant in the discharge of his official duties. 10. According to Rule 21 of the Himachal Pradesh Panchayati Raj (General) Rules, 1997, after the Government has established a Gram Sabha, a Pariwar Register is required to be prepared for every Gram Sabha in form 19. Pariwar Register contains the names and particulars of all persons, family-wise, residing in a village which forms part of the Sabha area. The register is required to be prepared by the Panchayat Secretary and the same is required to be verified by the Panchayat Inspector of the concerned block containing births, deaths and marriages. 11. There is no merit in the contention of Mr. Dushyant Dadwal that in the Gram Panchayat records Rakesh was wrongly incorporated instead of Rajesh Thakur. Annexure P-10 is an afterthought to cover up earlier illegality committed by the petitioner. Petitioner has misled, misrepresented and concealed the true facts from the respondent-corporation at the time of submitting her application dated 11.3.2004 pursuant to advertisement dated 11.2.2004. She has concealed her marriage as well as the fact that her mother was already a partner in the SKO Agency M/s Goverdhan Singh and Sons at Hamirpur, H.P. Respondent-corporation was within its right to cancel the agreement as per clause 28 of the application and para 6 of the affidavit dated 10.3.2004 read with clause 45 (i) of the agreement entered into between the parties on 18.9.2004. Act of the petitioner showing herself married to one Rajesh Thakur alias Rohit on 15.12.2003 besides being illegal is also immoral. No party would ever solemnize marriage twice, as contended by the petitioner. It cannot be believed that relations of the petitioner were not aware of the previous marriage. The relations knew about the exact date of marriage, therefore, they got entry of marriage recorded in the Panchayat records whereby the name of petitioner’s husband Rakesh was incorporated. 12. There is no violation of principle of natural justice since the petitioner has been issued detailed show cause notice on 30.4.2013 and the reply has also been considered while terminating the retail outlet on 24.2.2014. 13. 12. There is no violation of principle of natural justice since the petitioner has been issued detailed show cause notice on 30.4.2013 and the reply has also been considered while terminating the retail outlet on 24.2.2014. 13. Accordingly, in view of the analysis and discussion made hereinabove, there is no merit in the petition and the same is dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. No costs.