JUDGMENT By the Court.—Vikash Rao is before this Court for a direction to quash the order dated 15.7.2015 issued by the Senior Divisional Retail Sales Manager, Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., Gorakhpur Divisional office, Gorakhpur; for a direction to restrain the respondents from taking any action on the basis of order impugned and for a direction to the respondents to forthwith issue the Letter of Intent to the petitioner on the basis of his selection dated 10.4.2013 for allotment of Retail Outlet Dealership (Petrol Pump) at the site between mile stone No. 23 to 26 on Kasaya-Deoria Road (State Highway-79) District Deoria pursuant to advertisement dated 26.10.2011 within stipulated period. 2. This much is reflected from the record that the respondent-Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., Lucknow (in short “the Corporation”) issued an advertisement in ‘Dainik Jagran’ dated 26.10.2011, whereby applications were invited for appointment of Retail Outlet Dealers with regard to several sites in the State. The applications were also invited for Retail Outlet Petrol Pump Dealership in question on Kasya-Deoria Road (State Highway-79) between Mile Stone No. 23-26 specified at SN 225 of the said advertisement. The petitioner being fully qualified and eligible also applied pursuant to the aforesaid advertisement. The application so submitted was accompanied by several documents including proof of ownership of requisite land and a photocopy of the pass book of the petitioner with regard to Account No. 3157567504 of Central Bank at Gadrampur Branch, Deoria and other documents. It is claimed that an amount of Rs. 10,40,000/- was available in the account of the petitioner on the relevant date i.e. 23.12.2011. Consequently, in response to his application he had been called for an interview, which was held on 10.4.2013. On the said date total five applicants were interviewed and the petitioner was declared as duly selected for allocation of Retail Outlet Dealership in question. A photocopy of displayed mark sheet dated 10.4.2013 is also appended as Annexure 3 to the writ petition. A perusal of the aforesaid mark sheet would demonstrate that other four candidates namely Ashutosh Kumar Rai, Farware Alam Siddiqui, Pramod Kumar Jaiswal and Sanjay Jaiswal were categorised as not qualified on account of their having secured less than 60 marks on the basis of various parameters specified for selection. In the said marksheet the petitioner stood at first position having 82.74 marks out of total 100 marks. In the said marksheet the petitioner stood at first position having 82.74 marks out of total 100 marks. It is submitted that based upon the aforesaid selection a letter of intent ought to have been issued to the petitioner but a complaint was made by Pramod Kumar Jiaswal against the selection of the petitioner, however, the said complaint was rejected by the General Manager, U.P. State Office-1 of India Oil Corporation Ltd. by order dated 25.6.2014. In the meantime, Pramod Kumar Jaiswal has filed Writ Petition No. 62083 of 2014 (Pramod Kumar Jaiswal v. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. and others) challenging the selection of the petitioner. The said writ petition was dismissed by this Court on 28.11.2014. It is submitted that inspite of aforesaid facts, the letter of intent was not issued in favour of the petitioner. Consequently, the Senior Divisional Retail Sales Manager vide order dated 15.7.2015 has proceeded to cancel the candidature of the petitioner for the proposed location on the basis of vigilance report. 3. In this background, Shri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri Siddharth Khare have contended that the entire vigilance enquiry had been made by the respondents behind the back and at no point of time they have proceeded to issue any notice to the petitioner in this regard and inspite of completion of all the requisite formalities, the respondents had proceeded to cancel the candidature of the petitioner and as such it is contended that the order impugned is in violation of the principle of natural justice. Once a complaint was made against the petitioner and the competent authority had examined the matter and rejected the said objection vide order dated 25.6.2014 upholding the selection of the petitioner and once all the objections have been turned down, then the subsequent order impugned amounts to review of all earlier orders, which cannot sustain. Without any authority to review its earlier order, the respondents have proceeded to review the same, which is per se bad. 4. Shri Ashok Khare, Sr. Advocate further makes submissions that as per Paragraph 13 (ii) of the brochure, which was issued by the Corporation governing selection of Dealers for Petrol/Diesel Outlet dated 2.9.2011, eight parameters were provided over which the allocation is to be made. 4. Shri Ashok Khare, Sr. Advocate further makes submissions that as per Paragraph 13 (ii) of the brochure, which was issued by the Corporation governing selection of Dealers for Petrol/Diesel Outlet dated 2.9.2011, eight parameters were provided over which the allocation is to be made. The marks so indicated demonstrates that under the category of capacity to raise finances for which twenty five marks were allocated, twenty marks were allocated for the financial condition and five marks for creditworthiness. The twenty marks specified for financial condition stood further sub-categorized into twelve marks for availability of liquid funds, four marks for possession of movable and immovable property and four marks for income from various sources. It is contended that even in case the petitioner did not have the requisite liquid fund on the date of application and 12 marks allocated for liquid funds are deleted from the marks allocated to the petitioner, even in that eventuality the petitioner remains qualified candidate having 70.74 marks to his credit and even in that eventuality he continues to maintain the first position in the selection amongst five applicants. As such it is contended that the order impugned is per se bad and in violation of the selection guidelines and this Court should come to rescue and reprieve of the petitioner. 5. On the other hand, Shri Sanjiv Singh, learned counsel for the Corporation has vehemently opposed the writ petition on the ground that the petitioner had proceeded to submit his account statement for his account in question in which availability of Rs. 10.40 lacs had been shown on 23.12.2011. The petitioner has concealed the material fact in the matter and had not proceeded to submit his financial status as per the terms and conditions and even though without required financial capability had proceeded to submit his claim. The last date for submissions of application form was also 23.12.2011. During field verification of documents of the petitioner, on perusal of bank statement, it was observed that an amount of Rs. 4.5 lacs was withdrawn on the same day i.e. on 23.12.2011 and only Rs. 5.90 lacs was available as on the date of application/submission i.e. 23.12.2011. The last date for submissions of application form was also 23.12.2011. During field verification of documents of the petitioner, on perusal of bank statement, it was observed that an amount of Rs. 4.5 lacs was withdrawn on the same day i.e. on 23.12.2011 and only Rs. 5.90 lacs was available as on the date of application/submission i.e. 23.12.2011. As per point 13 of the application form, provided in the advertisement, amount shown in the application form in support of financial capabilities should be valid on the date of application i.e. closing balance on the date of application and as such the petitioner had proceeded to misrepresent the Corporation. As per Clause 10 (ja) of advertisement, the application of a candidate will be rejected in case of misrepresentation of facts. As such he submits that the Corporation has every right to find out the true financial status of the incumbent, who is interested to run the outlet. It is the responsibility of the Corporation to ensure that by all eventuality the incumbent in whose favour the allotment is going to be made must have financial viability/capability so that he may run the outlet. It is submitted that as such there is no infirmity or illegality in the order impugned and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed with cost. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner, regarding the aforesaid withdrawal from the account, has explained in para 27 of the writ petition as under : “27. That on account of emergent circumstances on 23.12.011 an amount of Rs. 4,50,000/- had to be withdrawn from the said account. It is specifically stated that the aforesaid withdrawal was made after up-dating passbook had been enclosed and submitted alongwith the application form.” 7. In this background, we have proceeded to examine the record in question. This much is reflected that the petitioner had proceeded to submit application for retail outlet on 22.12.2011. Alongwith the said application the petitioner had appended the statement of Account No. 3157567504 of Central Bank of India, Branch Garhrampur, Deoria, wherein the amount of Rs. 10,40,000/- is shown in the account on the relevant date i.e. 23.12.2011. The entry in the bank statement so appended alongwith the writ petition was hand written. At the time of argument, the pass book of the petitioner’s account updated upto 21.9.2012 has been placed by Shri Siddharth Khare. 10,40,000/- is shown in the account on the relevant date i.e. 23.12.2011. The entry in the bank statement so appended alongwith the writ petition was hand written. At the time of argument, the pass book of the petitioner’s account updated upto 21.9.2012 has been placed by Shri Siddharth Khare. For adjudicating the present controversy it would be relevant to indicate the transactions on the relevant date i.e. 23.12.2011, which is quoted as under : Date Cheque No. Particulars Withdrawals Deposits Balance 22/12/11 BY CASH PAN DETAILS AJJ 440000 440000 23/12/11 179673 TO TRF. TR 150000 590000 23/12/11 BY CASH PAN DETAILS AJJ 150000 740000 23/12/11 BY CASH PAN DETAILS AJJ 300000 1040000 23/12/11 463 CSH (CHQ) Paid to sanjy r 150000 890000 23/12/11 461 CSH (CHQ) Paid to sanjy r 300000 590000 8. The aforesaid entries clearly proceed to mention that on the said date i.e. 23.12.2011 an amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- has been deposited in the account through cheque No. 179673. Thereafter, Rs. 1,50,000/- and Rs. 3,00,000/- have been deposited through cash on the same day making total amount of Rs. 10,40,000/- in the said account. But surprisingly on the same day, two transactions had also been made by which an amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- through cheque No. 000463 and Rs. 3,00,000/- through cheque No. 000461 have been debited from the account making Rs. 5,90,000/- available in the account. 9. On the basis of aforesaid facts, we are of the considered opinion that on the said date i.e. 23.12.2011 the petitioner had proceeded to misrepresent the Corporation, wherein the petitioner has deliberately shown the amount of Rs. 10,40,000/- in his account but actually on the said date thereafter Rs. 4.5 lacs had been withdrawn and consequently on the said date only Rs. 5,90,000/- was available in the said account. Once this fact has been brought into the notice of the Corporation, they proceeded to cancel the claim of the petitioner. 10. The entire claim of the petitioner has been set out on the basis of his account No. 3157567504 and no other financial status has been shown or claimed. We proceed to make a mention that the pass book of the petitioner updated upto 21.9.2012 has been placed before this Court and on 21.9.2012 in his account there was only Rs. 96,628/-. 11. We proceed to make a mention that the pass book of the petitioner updated upto 21.9.2012 has been placed before this Court and on 21.9.2012 in his account there was only Rs. 96,628/-. 11. The aforementioned facts and circumstances clearly gives an impression that just for processing his application, the petitioner tried to make a deliberate attempt to place the incorrect statement of account on the date of submission of application i.e. 23.12.2011 as Rs. 10,40,000/- but actually on the said date the petitioner had only Rs. 5,90,000/- in his account and as such we are of the considered opinion that the petitioner had misrepresented the Corporation and as per the provisions contained under the advertisement the Corporation has every right to reject the candidature, in case any misrepresentation had been made. It is also apparent that as per the policy of the Corporation, they have every right to ensure that whatever the funds are mentioned alongwith the application on the relevant date, the applicant should ensure that the minimum funds required for the said purpose be available as closing balance at least on the said date. 12. In view of this, we find that the action of the respondents are fully justified under the present facts and circumstances and impugned order does not call for any interference under Art.226 of the Constitution of India. 13. The writ petition sans merit and is accordingly dismissed. ———————