Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 729 (GAU)

Shamsul Hoque Hazari v. Union of India & 4 Ors.

2016-08-04

AJIT SINGH, N.CHAUDHURY

body2016
Ajit Singh; CJ.:-- Mr. MH Laskar and Mr. S Roy, learned counsel for the appellant. Heard on admission. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 31.3.2016 passed by the learned Single Judge of this High Court whereby he has dismissed appellant’s WP(C) No. 4497/2011. The Indian Oil Corporation Limited (for short “IOC”) published an advertisement dated 26.2.2008 for LPG dealership at Silchar in Cachar District. Only the defence category applicants were eligible to this dealership. The infrastructure requirement as well as the financial capability for the dealership was clearly specified in the advertisement. In the select list published by the IOC, after short-listing the candidates, the name of appellant was shown at No. 1 position and that of Respondent No. 5 at No. 2 position. The IOC, however, disqualified the appellant as he failed to provide the showroom of prescribed dimension and discrepancies were found in the dimension mentioned in the application and the spot after field verification. Another ground for appellant’s disqualification was of making a false statement in the application regarding financial capability. The appellant had mentioned in the application that Rs. 5,99,424/- was available in his 3 savings bank accounts, but on verification, much lesser figure i.e. Rs. 1,85,950/- was found in those savings bank accounts. Although, the appellant tried to establish his financial capability by referring to some fixed deposit accounts, his application for the dealership did not reflect any such fixed deposits. Moreover, the fixed deposits in the savings bank accounts were already pledged and not unencumbered. Since the appellant was disqualified after field verification, letter of intent was issued to Respondent No. 5 who has also commissioned the LPG dealership at Silchar. Aggrieved, the appellant filed WP(C) No. 4497/2011, which the learned Single Judge has dismissed by the impugned order. The learned counsel for the appellant could not dis-lodge the grounds, on which the appellant was disqualified for the dealership. The appellant, in all fairness, ought to have furnished correct information in the application. The learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition by giving cogent reasons. We find no good ground to take a different view. The appeal has no merit and is accordingly dismissed.