Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 722 (AP)

Raja Gas Agencies v. Union Of India

2020-11-18

U.DURGA PRASAD RAO

body2020
JUDGMENT U.Durga Prasad Rao, J. - The petitioner seeks a mandamus declaring the action of the 3rd respondent in not acting upon the petitioner's letter dated 31.08.2020 in the enquiry proceedings pursuant to show cause notice GB/VLRO/Legal dated 27.07.2020 as illegal, arbitrary and violative of the principles of natural justice and for a consequential direction to 3rd respondent to act upon the letter dated 31.08.2020 of the petitioner and pass such other order. 2. The 2nd respondent issued notification dated 01.10.2007 for appointment of LPG Distributors throughout the then united Andhra Pradesh. Pursuant to which, the petitioner applied for the location Kadiyam in East Godavari District which was notified as reserved category for SC/ST. After scrutiny of applications and interview, the petitioner became the successful candidate for Kadiyam. Subsequently the Distributorship Agreement dated 03.11.2020 was entered into by the petitioner with 3rd respondent and since then the petitioner has been operating LPG distributorship without therebeing any complaint. (a) While so, the 3rd respondent issued a show cause notice dated 08.03.2018 stating that the experience certificate submitted by the petitioner along with his application is false. The said show cause notice was issued on the complaint dated 19.03.2012 submitted by the unofficial respondent No.4, who was also one of the applicants for LPG distributorship at Kadiyam. During the verification made by the respondents, it was allegedly revealed that the agency who gave experience certificate to the petitioner denied to have issued the said experience certificate. Basing on it, the 3rd respondent issued a show cause notice. Since the issuance of show cause notice was bad at law, the petitioner filed W.P.No.15562/2018 before the common High Court at Hyderabad which was disposed of on 26.02.2020 directing the respondents to conduct fresh enquiry after giving opportunity to the petitioner as well as 4th respondent. (b) Thereafter, the 3rd respondent issued a fresh show cause notice dated 27.07.2020 alleging violation of clause 34(h) of dealership agreement dated 03.11.2020 and called upon the petitioner to submit its explanation. On 12.06.2020, the petitioner sought for certain documents and on 19.06.2020 the petitioner requested for the documents provided by the Field Verification Officer. Accordingly, those documents were provided to the petitioner on 14.08.2020 through letter dated 01.08.2020. The petitioner asked for the Field Verification Report and the same was also furnished through letter dated 14.08.2020. On 12.06.2020, the petitioner sought for certain documents and on 19.06.2020 the petitioner requested for the documents provided by the Field Verification Officer. Accordingly, those documents were provided to the petitioner on 14.08.2020 through letter dated 01.08.2020. The petitioner asked for the Field Verification Report and the same was also furnished through letter dated 14.08.2020. Though the said document is a crucial one, the 3rd respondent commented as if the same was not a relevant document. (c) While so, the petitioner submitted his detailed reply dated 23.08.2020 as against the show cause notice. Later the petitioner came to know that the 4th respondent having threatened M/s. Sri Lakshmi Tulasi Gas Agency, Rajahmundry and M/s. Savithri Petro Filling Station, Ravulapalem obtained false statements with regard to the issuance of experience certificate to the petitioner. Thus, due to the threat offered by him, those agencies retracted from their earlier certificates. (d) In view of the above circumstances, the petitioner considered it just and necessary to seek for summoning the committee members i.e., Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Jha, Area Sales Manager and Mr. L.S.Prakasa Rao, Senior Operations Officer and examine them with regard to the genuineness of the verification done by them with regard to the experience certificates. Hence, the petitioner submitted a letter dated 31.08.2020 requesting the 3rd respondent to summon the above officers. However, the 3rd respondent orally informed that he would not summon them and he would pass orders based on the petitioner's representation dated 23.08.2020. Hence, the writ petition. 3. The respondents 2 & 3 filed counter opposing the writ petition contending thus: (a) The respondent corporation selected the writ petitioner as a LPG distributor for the location Kadiyam through LPG distributor selection process and issued LOI dated 23.10.2009 to the petitioner and he entered into an LPG dealership agreement on 03.11.2010. (b) While so, the Corporation received a complaint dated 28.08.2012 from the 4th respondent, inter alia, complaining that the experience certificate dated 29.07.2007 submitted by the petitioner along with his application, claiming to have been issued by HPCL's LPG distributor M/s. Sri Lakshmi Tulasi Gas Agency, Rajahmundry for the period from 10.09.2003 to 04.10.2005 was a fake certificate. It is further complained that the petitioner had also separately applied before Indian Oil Corporation Limited and respondent Corporation at Antharvedi for LPG distributorship and at two locations he submitted separate experience certificates along with his applications. It is further complained that the petitioner had also separately applied before Indian Oil Corporation Limited and respondent Corporation at Antharvedi for LPG distributorship and at two locations he submitted separate experience certificates along with his applications. The service period of experience certificate submitted for location Kadiyam was in contradiction with the later two experience certificates submitted along with two other applications. They are (i) Experience certificate dated NIL issued by M/s. Sri Lakshmi Tulasi Gas Agency, Rajahmundry for the period 05.11.2003 to 08.05.2005 submitted before Indian Oil Corporation Limited. (ii) Experience Certificate dated 08.11.2005 issued by M/s. Savitri Petrol Filling Station, Ravulapalem for the period from 09.09.2002 to 08.11.2005 submitted before the respondent Corporation. (c) The Corporation verified the complaint allegations and found that the experience certificates were fake and the concerned agencies issued letters i.e., letter dated 03.10.2013 by M/s. Sri Lakshmi Tulasi Gas Agency stating that experience certificate produced by the petitioner dated 29.07.2007 and another certificate dated NIL were not issued by them. Similarly M/s. Savitri Petro Filling Station issued a letter dated 04.09.2013 stating that the experience certificate submitted by the petitioner dated 08.11.2005 was not issued by them. Hence, the Corporation issued show cause notice calling for explanation. After filing the explanation dated 21.03.2018, he filed W.P.No.15562/2018. The said writ petition was disposed of on 26.02.2020 directing the Corporation to supply the copies of the documents and conduct fresh enquiry after giving opportunity to the petitioner and the 4th respondent. (d) In compliance of the above order, both the petitioner and 4th respondent were called for personal hearing and all the material documents were supplied to them. Subsequently a comprehensive show cause notice vide Ref.No.GB/VLRO/legal dated 27.07.2020 was issued. The petitioner submitted his explanation dated 24.08.2020 and submitted a letter dated 01.08.2020 requesting to supply Field Verification of Credentials (FVC) report and the Corporation supplied the same. Subsequently the petitioner submitted an additional explanation dated 31.08.2020 and sought to summon the committee members i.e., Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Jha and Mr. L.S.Prakash Rao to examine them with regard to the genuineness of the verification done by them vide Field Verification Report dated 09.09.2009. At this stage, he filed the instant writ petition. (e) The respondents further contended that FVC report dated 09.09.2009 is a matter of record and a copy of the report was already supplied to the petitioner vide letter dated 14.08.2020. At this stage, he filed the instant writ petition. (e) The respondents further contended that FVC report dated 09.09.2009 is a matter of record and a copy of the report was already supplied to the petitioner vide letter dated 14.08.2020. The said report is not disputed by the petitioner or by the respondent Corporation. Hence, there is no justification or reason to ask for summoning the committee members. Further, one of the two officials who conducted FVC in 2009 was retired from the service. Above all, it is for the petitioner to establish that the certificates produced by him are genuine and not forged or fabricated. The request of the petitioner has no relevancy to the enquiry. The verification prima facie disclosed that the petitioner submitted fake experience certificates. He produced two different experience certificates to two different locations i.e., he submitted experience certificate dated 29.07.2007 to show that he worked in M/s. Sri Lakshmi Tulasi Gas Agency, Rajahmundry from 05.11.2003 to 08.05.2005. This certificate was produced for LPG distributorship at Kadiyam. While so, the petitioner submitted an experience certificate to show that he worked in M/s. Savitri Petro Filling Station, Ravulapalem from 09.09.2002 to 08.11.2005 and this certificate was offered for distributorship at Antarvedi. During the field verification, concerned distributors have given written confirmation that the petitioner was not employed at their respective locations. Hence, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 4. The petitioner filed reply affidavit denying the counter averments. His plea is that he furnished the experience certificate issued by M/s. Lakshmi Tulasi Gas Agency, but he did not submit the experience certificate issued by M/s. Savitri Petro Filling Station. During the field verification by the committee members, M/s. Lakshmi Tulasi Gas Agency confirmed the issuance of the said certificate vide its endorsement. The said endorsement document was available in the field verification report dated 09.09.2009. Therefore, the question of doubting the experience certificate of the petitioner does not arise. Hence, the petitioner has no other option except summoning the committee members as otherwise the petitioner would suffer grave prejudice. 5. Heard the learned counsel for petitioner Sri V.R.N.Prashanth, and learned Assistant Solicitor General of India representing the 1st respondent, and learned counsel for the respondents 2 & 3 Sri G.Ramagopal, and Sri S.Subba Reddy, learned counsel for 4th respondent. 6. 5. Heard the learned counsel for petitioner Sri V.R.N.Prashanth, and learned Assistant Solicitor General of India representing the 1st respondent, and learned counsel for the respondents 2 & 3 Sri G.Ramagopal, and Sri S.Subba Reddy, learned counsel for 4th respondent. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner, while reiterating the petition averments in his arguments, would submit that the summoning and examination of the two members of the verification committee is quite essential to establish the stand of the petitioner. Since the field verification was done by the members and they allegedly obtained the information from the concerned distributory agencies saying that they did not issue the experience certificates to the petitioner, the examination of the committee members is essential. 7. In oppugnation, Sri G.Ramagopal, learned counsel for the Corporation argued that the details of the verification made by the committee members were noted in the FVC and which are a part of the record and a copy of the FVC was already supplied to the petitioner and therefore, there is no point in summoning them. He argued that the committee members cannot authenticate the genuinity of the experience certificates. It is for the petitioner to prove the authenticity of the certificates produced by him by examining the concerned agencies and not by summoning the members of the committee. He further argued that one of the members was already retired. 8. I find force in the submission of the learned counsel for the respondent Corporation. The particulars of the verification are a matter of record in FVC and even if the members of the committee are summoned, they cannot speak beyond those facts. The genuinity or otherwise of the experience certificates have to be established by the petitioner by examining the concerned agencies who issued him those certificates but not the members of the committee. Thus, I find no merits in the contention of the petitioner that he will be severely prejudiced if the committee members are not summoned. 9. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. As a sequel, interlocutory applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.