JUDGMENT : 1. Since both these writ petitions have been filed in respect of advertisement dated 20.09.2011 regarding allotment of dealership of retail outlet, and for the same outlet, therefore, the writ petitions are decided by a common order. 2. For the purpose of deciding the controversy, I deem it appropriate to first decide the controversy involved in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.10685/2012. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.10685/2012 1. The instant writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with the following prayers:- “I. by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the order dated 28.11.2012 (Anenxure-6) may kindly be declared illegal and be quashed and set aside, consequently the respondent be directed to issue Letter Of Intent in favour of the petitioner. II. Any other appropriate order or direction, which this Hon’ble Court considers just and proper in the facts and circumstances of this case, may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner. III. Costs of the writ petition may kindly be awarded to the petitioner.” 2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent issued an advertisement dated 20.09.2011, inviting applications for appointment of dealers of retail-outlets at various points, which was published in a tabular form of eleven columns on 21.09.2011 in ‘Rajasthan Patrika’ with various qualifications for eligibility of a person to apply for allotment of dealership of retail outlets and the controversy is involved with columns Nos.7A and 7B. 3. The Column 7A of the advertisement indicates that an applicant should have available with him approximate capital (excluding the cost of land) for development of necessary infrastructure on the compound of retail outlet whereas, column 7B prescribes the approximate liquid capital available with an applicant for the purpose of operating the retail outlet. 4. The retail outlet which was applied for by the petitioner was at Sr.No.151 in the said advertisement pertaining to NH-15 (Phalodi-Ramdeora Road) between km stone 187 to 191. The relevant column i.e. column No.7A mentioned that no such capital for development of infrastructure is required, however, as per column No.7B, the liquid capital approximately required for being eligible was Rs.21 lacs. 5. The relevant column i.e. column No.7A mentioned that no such capital for development of infrastructure is required, however, as per column No.7B, the liquid capital approximately required for being eligible was Rs.21 lacs. 5. The Condition No.13 in the advertisement provided that where income/assets of the applicant is not in the sole ownership of the applicant and falls within the joint account or assets of the family, then the same shall be considered for evaluation only when a notarized affidavit denoting consent of such family members is filed along with the application and the application was considered for evaluation. The petitioner who was eligible for applying for allotment of dealership in terms of advertisement (Anenxure-1) applied for the same. 6. In column 2A of the liquid capital document (Annexure-3) and as per the details of the petitioner’s bank account, an amount of Rs.4,73,000/-was shown in the State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur, Branch Phalodi. Total liquid capital available in the case of petitioner was Rs.21,51,120/-which included the assets of the petitioner’s husband. In column 2A of Annexure-3, the petitioner has shown an amount of Rs.4,73,000/-as standing in her account and the said fact was verified by the copy of pass-book detailing the relevant entries which were showing entries till 17.10.2011. 7. On 20.10.2011, an amount of Rs.3,000/-was withdrawn from the said account by ATM transaction and after processing the application of the petitioner, she was invited for interview on 04.05.2012 and as a result whereof, she was declared ‘first’ in merit panel prepared for allotment of dealership. 8. The petitioner received a letter dated 28.11.2021 by post on 01.12.2012, intimating her that she has not been found eligible for issuance of Letter Of Intent, which further revealed that after the petitioner was declared ‘first’ in merit, and after an interview, a complaint was received by the respondent-Corporation on 28.05.2012 in which it was alleged that when the petitioner filed an application for allotment of dealership on 21.10.2011, she mentioned an amount of Rs.4,73,513.21 in her account, whereas upon verification, it was revealed that on 21.10.2011 an amount of Rs.4,70,513.21 was found present in her account. Hence, this petition. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner made following submissions:- (a) As per the eligibility criteria laid down in the advertisement, the petitioner was required to satisfy the condition of being in possession of liquid capital to the tune of Rs.21 lakhs. Hence, this petition. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner made following submissions:- (a) As per the eligibility criteria laid down in the advertisement, the petitioner was required to satisfy the condition of being in possession of liquid capital to the tune of Rs.21 lakhs. The amount available with the petitioner was to the tune of Rs.21,51,150/-, therefore, even if a difference of Rs.3,000-was present in the amount as contended by the respondents, then also it did not affect the eligibility of the petitioner as even if the said amount is deducted from the amount of RS.21,51,150/-, the petitioner will fulfill the eligibility criteria of Rs.21 lakhs. Therefore, the order impugned deserves to be quashed and set aside. (b) The petitioner, along with her application form, submitted the details of her bank account on 20.10.2011, showing the details of transaction uptill 17.10.2011. An amount of Rs.3000/-was withdrawn from the said account through an ATM transaction on 20.10.2011. The disclosure of the information made vide Annex.4 cannot be said to be incorrect as it showed the details up to 20.10.2011 and on 20.10.2011, the balance was Rs.4,73,513.21/-. The petitioner was required to satisfy the availability of requisite amount on the date of the application and the petitioner was having the requisite fund available with her on the date of filing of the application i.e. 20.10.2011 and no false information in regard to the same was furnished. (c) The petitioner’s eligibility was cancelled by the respondent without affording the petitioner an opportunity of hearing based on one complaint. If a complaint was filed pointing out that the petitioner had a sum of Rs.4,70,513.21/-in her bank account instead of Rs.4,73,513.21/-, then, respondent-Corporation was required to afford the petitioner an opportunity of hearing to fortify the same. The respondent-Corporation had issued a brochure for selection of petrol/diesel retail outlet dated 02.09.2011, whereby certain guidelines had been laid down and under the Clause 18, the provision for grievance/complaint redressal system had been laid down, which specifically said that the complainant, etc., are required to be given due opportunity before passing a speaking order. The relevant provision is reproduced hereunder:- “18. Grievance/Complaint redressal system: (A) An aggrieved person may send his/her complaint to IOC at the address of the customer service cell displayed at the nearest retail outlet of IOC. Complaints can also be lodged on the website of IOC. The relevant provision is reproduced hereunder:- “18. Grievance/Complaint redressal system: (A) An aggrieved person may send his/her complaint to IOC at the address of the customer service cell displayed at the nearest retail outlet of IOC. Complaints can also be lodged on the website of IOC. Complaints against dealer selection received after 30 days from the date of declaration of the result of the interview will not be entertained under any circumstances. (i) Anonymous/pseudonymous complaints will not be investigated and will be filed without taking any action on the same. (ii) On receipt of a complaint a letter will be sent by IOC to the complainant through Registered Post, asking him to submit details of allegation with a view to prima facie substantiate the allegations along with supporting documents, if any, within 30 days. Response of the complainant will be examined by IOC and if it is found that the complaint does not have specific and verifiable allegations, the same will be filed. The complainant will be clearly advised that the complaint will be examined by IOC and if it is established that the complaint does not have any substance, the same will be liable for legal action. (B) When a decision is taken to investigate the complaint, the investigation will be done by a Senior Official of Oil Company and will pass speaking order after giving due opportunity to all concerned. Thereafter, decision on the complaint will be taken as under:- xxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxx 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance upon the judgment of Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Kalu Ram & Ors. [2011 SCC Online P&H 7516]. 11. Learned counsel for the respondent made following submissions:- (a) The petitioner had submitted the application form on 21.10.2011 and not on 20.10.2011 as contended by petitioner as the same was received by the respondent’s office vide receipt No.129 dated 21.10.2011 and the same is placed on record as Annex.R/3. The petitioner, through her bank statement, claimed Rs.4,73,513.21/-to be in her bank account bearing No.51040998012 on 20.10.2011 of SBBJ, Phalodi, Jodhpur. After due verification of the documents submitted by the petitioner, a field investigation report was submitted, which showed that the petitioner had an amount of Rs.4,70,513.21/-on the date of submission of application form, i.e. 21.10.2011. The petitioner, through her bank statement, claimed Rs.4,73,513.21/-to be in her bank account bearing No.51040998012 on 20.10.2011 of SBBJ, Phalodi, Jodhpur. After due verification of the documents submitted by the petitioner, a field investigation report was submitted, which showed that the petitioner had an amount of Rs.4,70,513.21/-on the date of submission of application form, i.e. 21.10.2011. The information regarding the financial status, as given by the petitioner along with her application form, was found to be incorrect as the actual balance on the date of application submitted by the petitioner, was less than the amount claimed by the petitioner. The Brochure (Annex.R/1) issued by the respondent-Corporation for selection of petrol/diesel retail outlet clearly specified under Clause 13 that “amount given in FDS, Bank accounts and other financial documents as proof for financial capacity should be valid as on the date of application’, whereas petitioner has not given the correct financial documents as proof along with the application form. (b) Under the clause 19.2 of the Brochure (Annex.R/1), pertaining to furnishing of false information, it has been specifically said that “if any information furnished by the applicant is found to be false at any point of time before or after appointment as a dealer, the allotment will be cancelled forthwith and dealership terminated in case commissioned”. Thus, upon the fact that petitioner has furnished false/incorrect information of having a balance of Rs.4,73,513.21/-, the impugned order has rightly been passed against the petitioner. (c) The clause 21.0, where the general terms and conditions are laid down, sub-clause (h) pertains to the cancellation of the candidature at any stage if found to be incorrect or false without issuing any reason and the same is reproduced hereunder:- “If any statement made in the application or in the document enclosed therewith or subsequently submitted in pursuance of the application by the candidate at any stage is found to be incorrect or false, the application is liable to be rejected without assigning any reason and in case the applicant has been appointed as a dealer, the dealership is liable to be terminated. In such case the candidate/dealer shall have no claim whatsoever against IOC.” 12. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 13. This is an admitted position that the petitioner submitted the application form on 21.10.2011 and not on 20.10.2011. In such case the candidate/dealer shall have no claim whatsoever against IOC.” 12. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 13. This is an admitted position that the petitioner submitted the application form on 21.10.2011 and not on 20.10.2011. The bank statement, as submitted by the petitioner showed Rs.4,73,513.21/-to be in her bank account as on 20.10.211, whereas on 20.10.2011 itself, an amount of Rs.3,000/-was withdrawn from the bank account of the petitioner. Thus, the total amount that remained in the account of the petitioner was Rs.4,70,513.21/-. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner fulfilled the eligibility criteria as laid down in the advertisement being in possession of liquid capital to the tune of Rs.21 lakhs on the date of submission of the application form. The amount available with the petitioner was to the tune of Rs.21,51,150/-and a difference of Rs.3,000/-if deducted from the said amount, would not have made difference because the benchmark laid down in the eligibility criteria was of Rs.21 lakhs. This fact cannot be denied that there was a false information given on the part of the petitioner that an amount of Rs.4,73,513.21/-. was present in her bank account as on 21.10.2011 as the application was submitted on 21.10.2011. The bank statement submitted by the petitioner reflected the balance to the tune of Rs.4,73,513.21/-as on 20.10.2011, but the same was false and incorrect as the petitioner withdrew an amount of Rs.3,000/-, but the petitioner was required to give valid information which had to be true and correct on the date of submission of the application form and the petitioner failed to do so. However, upon receiving the field investigation report by the respondent-Corporation, it came to their knowledge that the amount claimed by the petitioner in her bank account as on 20.10.2011 was not Rs.4,73,513.21/- but was Rs.4,70,513.21/-. 14. The clause 19.2 of the brochure pertains to furnishing of false information and empowers the Corporation to cancel the candidature at any point of time if any information is found to be false by the applicant. 14. The clause 19.2 of the brochure pertains to furnishing of false information and empowers the Corporation to cancel the candidature at any point of time if any information is found to be false by the applicant. Here, it is important to note that the application could be rejected by the respondent-Corporation if any information was found to be false and incorrect and such rejection does not restrict to information pertaining to only eligibility, therefore, the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner fulfilled all other eligibility criteria and no information pertaining to eligibility was falsely furnished and therefore, her candidature has wrongly been rejected. Further, the clause 21.0, where the general terms and conditions are laid down, the clause (h) empowers the Corporation to reject the application without assigning any reason if any statement made in the application or in the documents enclosed therewith or subsequently in pursuance of the application at any stage is found to be incorrect or false. The aforementioned clause (h) of Clause 21.0 bestows wide power to the respondent-Corporation to reject the application at any stage, that too, without assigning any reason. 15. Admittedly, the petitioner gave a false/incorrect information in the document enclosed with the application form that she had a balance of Rs.4,73,513.21/-in her bank account on 20.10.2011, whereas the same was found to be RS.4,70,513.21/-on the date of application form i.e. 21.10.2011. 16. It is further important to note that the sub-clause (h) of Clause 21.0 also categorically mentions that if any information is found to be incorrect or false, then the respondent-Corporation can reject the application of the applicant without assigning any reason. Thus, in such case, the applicant is not even required to be afforded an opportunity of hearing and the respondent Corporation is not under obligation to assign any reason However, in the instant case, the respondent-Corporation has assigned a categorical reason for rejecting the application of the petitioner. 17. As far as the issue of opportunity of hearing not being afforded to the petitioner before passing impugned order is concerned, is of no consequence because even if the petitioner would have been afforded an opportunity of hearing, the fact that an incorrect information in respect of balance in her account was submitted by the petitioner along with the application form cannot be denied. Had there been even a remote possibility of change in the decision of the respondent, if there was any ambiguity in respect of balance in her account on 21.10.2011, then certainly an opportunity of hearing would have been of paramount importance for the petitioner. The petitioner had not refuted this fact that on 21.10.2011, the balance in the petitioner’s account was Rs.4,70,513.21/-and not Rs.4,73,513.21/-. Thus, even if the petitioner had been afforded an opportunity of hearing, the fact of discrepancy in the account of the petitioner could not be denied. 18. In view of the above, I do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed. 19. The stay application and all other applications, if any, stand disposed of accordingly. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.10685/2012 1. This writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with the following prayers:- “(i) by an appropriate writ, order or direction the result dated 04.05.2012 (Annex.5) for selection of the dealership of retail outlet, in pursuance of the advertisement dated 20.09.2011. qua respondent no.6 may kindly be quashed and set aside; (ii) by appropriate writ, order or direction, any consequential allotment of the distributorship to the private respondent for petrol pump for the location Kmstone 187 & 191 at NH-15 situated between Phalodi & Ramdeora road in pursuance of the advertisement dated 20.09.2011 may be quashed and set aside; (iii) by appropriate writ, order or direction, if the private respondent’s no.6 position is quashed, then the respondents may kindly be directed to operate the result-sheet by giving the Letter of Intent and consequential allotment in favour of the petitioner, who shall be the highest in the merit; will do justice in the case of the petitioner. (iv) by appropriate writ, order or direction, any order passed by the respondents in pursuance of the objections raised by the petitioner may be kindly treated as a part and parcel of the writ petition and the same may be quashed and set aside;” 2. From a bare perusal of the reliefs prayed for by the petitioner in this writ petition, it is clear that the main challenge is against the respondent No.6, who is petitioner in connected writ petition No.13072/2012, which stood dismissed by the aforesaid order. 3. From a bare perusal of the reliefs prayed for by the petitioner in this writ petition, it is clear that the main challenge is against the respondent No.6, who is petitioner in connected writ petition No.13072/2012, which stood dismissed by the aforesaid order. 3. In view of the aforesaid decision passed in SB Civil Writ Petition No.13072/2012, the present writ petition is disposed of while directing the respondent-Corporation to consider the candidature of the petitioner for allotment of the dealership of retail outlet at NH No.15, between KM Stone 187 to 191 (Phalodi-Ramdeora Road) in pursuance of the advertisement dated 20.09.2011, published on 21.09.2011, strictly in accordance with law. 4. The stay application and all other pending applications, if any, also stands disposed of accordingly.