Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 614 (RAJ)

Manisha v. Government Of Rajasthan

2022-02-21

SAMEER JAIN

body2022
JUDGMENT Sameer Jain, J. - Learned counsel for the petitioner has invoked provisions of Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the withdrawal of letter of intent in terms of advertisement dated 23.08.2017 for LPG distributorship by respondent No. 3 i.e. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited (for short 'BPCL'). 2. On 23.07.2017 an advertisement was issued by respondent No. 3 for LPG distributorship across Rajasthan. The petitioner herein, possessing all the requisite eligibility and qualifications, applied for the same originally under the open category distributorship. On 22.02.2018, the respondents sent a letter to the petitioner with reference to their intention to offer the petitioner LPG distributorship at Guwalda, District Alwar along with required conditions that were to be duly followed by the petitioners in order to get LPG distributorship. 3. Vide letter dated 03.08.2018 show cause notice was issued to the petitioner for breach of LPG distributorship, selection guidelines and conditions of LOI on account of a complaint wherein it was alleged that a fake NOC dated 25.01.2018 was applied and submitted by the petitioner in the name of Baroda Rajasthan Kshetriya Gramin Bank, Tapukara pertaining to godown land. In the light of the complaint and Field Verification of Credential (FVC), it was revealed that the letter dated 25.01.2018 was neither issued by the Bank nor was issued on the authorized letter-head, and the stamp used on the letter did not belong to their Bank and that the said letter was not genuine hence, there was misrepresentation and fraud committed. 4. In terms of the said show cause notice, vide Annexure-9 it was admitted by the petitioner that she has taken aid and help of close family friend/relative who had replaced the Bank certificate on account of the fact that the close friend was also having LPG distributorship. She is a rural lady and educated only upto 12th class and there was no intention to commit any fraud/misrepresentation as she already had one certificate of Bank dated 04.01.2018 which was original and the same was replaced by the family friend who was helping her in the said application. 5. She is a rural lady and educated only upto 12th class and there was no intention to commit any fraud/misrepresentation as she already had one certificate of Bank dated 04.01.2018 which was original and the same was replaced by the family friend who was helping her in the said application. 5. Vide impugned order dated 16.11.2018, after consideration of the reply of the petitioner and FVC, relying upon Clause 26 of the Unified Guidelines and on account of the fact that the NOC submitted by her was found to be fake and she had knowingly submitted a false document during the conduct of FVC, respondent No. 3 withdrew the LOI dated 22.02.2018. The justification given by her was not found to be satisfactory by Respondent No. 3 as, if the document dated 04.01.2018 was available with her at the time of FVC, she would not have had signed the document dated 25.01.2018 knowing it to be forged and not genuine. She also failed to give any explanation as to why she did not initiate any action against the alleged family friend regarding such misrepresentation against her own will. Further, at the time when FVC was being conducted, she did not possess letter dated 04.01.2018 and was very aware of the fact that the document submitted by her is not genuine. The plea of her being less educated and a rural lady, was not accepted by Respondent No. 3 as the education upto class 12th is sufficient enough to understand that she was submitting a fake document during FVC. 6. It is in this background that the present petition is filed by the petitioner praying to set-aside and quash the order dated 16.11.2018 and to consider her candidature for LPG distributorship on the ground that she is in possession of all the requisite eligibility and has even made an investment by way of godown and she should not be held at any disadvantage due to her lack of knowledge on account of connivance of her family friend, who has inimical relation with her. 7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that letter of withdrawal is self speaking, the terms and conditions of LOI have expressly made it clear that in case of any mistake, fraud/misrepresentation, the application will be rejected. 7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that letter of withdrawal is self speaking, the terms and conditions of LOI have expressly made it clear that in case of any mistake, fraud/misrepresentation, the application will be rejected. No new document i.e. on 04.01.2018 can be considered at the stage of stay application and they are bound by terms and conditions and no estoppel is created. They further submitted that the matter involves factual disputes which cannot be gone into while entertaining the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 8. This Court considered the arguments advanced by the respective advocates. This Court also considered records of the case and judgments cited at Bar. 9. On consideration of the same, this Court is of the opinion that clause 26 of the unified guidelines for selection of LPG and distributorship specifically states that if at any stage it is found that something is incorrect, false or misrepresented for any reason, the respondents will be at liberty to cancel the distributorship/terminate the same and forfeit the security amount without assigning any reason. It is also categorically specified by way of impugned order in question that to show the bonafide, no criminal complaint, at that particular time, was brought on record before the respondents in terms of FIR or any other claim against the said relative alleged to have committed replacement of documents. Further the alleged letter in question dated 04.01.2018 issued by Bank cannot be considered by the respondents at a belated stage. 10. It is settled position of law as held by Supreme Court in Sanjay Kumar Jha v. Prakash Chandra Chaudhary & Ors. reported in (2019) 2 SCC 499 that in Government grants, largesse, public property and public premises, scope of interference by High Court and consideration of factual questions, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is impermissible. 11. In the light of above, the writ petition is dismissed. 12. All pending applications stand disposed of in above terms.