JUDGMENT 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri M.E. Khan, learned counsel for the Bharat Petroleum Corporation. 2. The petitioner has been shown at Serial No. 1 in the select list which was drawn for the purpose of award of a retail outlet and for that the petitioner's financial capacity has been assessed and twelve marks have been awarded. During field verification it was found that the petitioner on the strength of a bank account statement dated 18.11.2010 indicated availability of a deposit of Rs. 16.06 Lacs. 3. The last date of application was almost eleven months thereafter that is 12.10.2011 and on verification it was found that on that date the petitioner only had Rs. 1,86,982.18 paise in his Account. 4. Thus the award of twelve marks to the petitioner was based on an incorrect declaration of the amount available to him about a year earlier. This is the reason given now in the impugned communication issued to the petitioner apart from a dispute about his residence to cancel the empanelment. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contested both the grounds in the impugned communication urging that so far as the residence of the petitioner is concerned the same could have been very easily verified from other sources as well, therefore, to treat the petitioner to be not a resident of the locality is erroneous as it is not founded on a proper enquiry. 6. The second ground urged is that the petitioner did have the financial capacity and since the advertisement and guidelines do not provide for any minimum balance in the Bank Account then in that event the second reason given for cancelling the empanelment is without any basis. 7. Sri Khan on the other hand submits that so far as the residence dispute is concerned the petitioner did not file or produce any cogent evidence to establish his residence of the place where he alleges and secondly the petitioner admittedly had disclosed an incorrect figure of the availability of finances as on the date of the application dated 12.10.2011 which entails a disqualification on account of such wrong disclosure. 8. We have considered the aforesaid submissions raised and the second reason given in the order is found to be correct on the basis of the averments made in the writ petition itself, inasmuch as, the petitioner has nowhere disputed the availability of Rs. 8. We have considered the aforesaid submissions raised and the second reason given in the order is found to be correct on the basis of the averments made in the writ petition itself, inasmuch as, the petitioner has nowhere disputed the availability of Rs. 1,86,982.18 paise as on the date of the application. Thus the petitioner had given a wrong figure of Rs. 16.06 Lacs in the application on the strength of almost a year old bank statement account and which position remains unexplained even in the writ petition. 9. We are therefore of the opinion that the petitioner was clearly required to furnish correct information and as per Clause 21 of the Guidelines, on furnishing of false information or concealing an information disqualification is incurred which authority has been rightly invoked against the empanelment of the petitioner. Clause 21 is extracted hereinunder: - "21. Furnishing of false information/concealing information: 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 or conceals any information which if declared would have made him/her ineligible for dealership, the allotment will be cancelled forthwith and dealership terminated, in case commissioned." 10. Consequently, in view of the aforesaid clause as also his undertaking given in the prescribed proforma about the correctness of such original information the petitioner has disqualified himself from consideration and empanelment. The impugned communication, therefore, does not require any interference. 11. The writ petition is dismissed with the said observations.