SRI RAGHAVENDRA vs. M/S BHARATH PETROLEUM

1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 17th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2012 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAN SHANTANAGOUDAR Writ Petition No.21973 OF 2010 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: Sri Raghavendra S/o Mutha Poojary Aged about 28 years R/a No.585, 18th Main, HAL 2nd Stage Indiranagar, Bangalore-08. ..Petitioner (By Sri Rajaram S for Dharmashree Associates, Adv.,) AND : 1. M/s. Bharath Petroleum Corporation Limited Customer Relation Centre (LPG) ‘Duparc Trinity’, 7th Floor 17, M.G. Road, Bangalore-560 001 Rep by its Territory Manager (LPG). 2. Sri G. Vijay Kumar M/s Vijay Bharat Gas Enterprises No.749, Sarjapur Main Road Attibele, Anekal Taluk Bangalore-562107. ..Respondents (By Sri Monesh Kumar for M.S. Narayan, Advs.,)

2 This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the order dated 5.7.2010 and 16.5.2010 passed by the respondent vide Annexures-A and B respectively. This writ petition coming on for preliminary hearing in ‘B’ group this day, the Court made the following. O R D E R The petitioner submitted an application for grant of LPG Distributorship pursuant to the notification published in the newspaper calling for applications in that regard by the respondent No.1. The application was made on 3.12.2007 as per Annexure-D. Respondent No.1 after considering the application and the relevant records, vide its letter dated 10.8.2009 called the petitioner for interview before the Distributor Selection Committee.

Accordingly, the petitioner attended for interview and the selection list was prepared on 27.8.2009 in which the petitioner secured 89.33 marks and he stood first. However, subsequently the field verification was conducted and in the said field verification, it was found that the petitioner has not

3 substantiated that his income is Rs.5,04,580/- as stated in his application for dealership. On verification, it was found that the income of the petitioner was only Rs.1,48,125/- for the relevant year as per the Income Tax Returns and as per the letter Annexure-J provided by the petitioner himself. 2. In view of the above, the petitioner’s application was rejected by the concerned committee as per Annexure-B on 16.5.2010. The said order was questioned by the petitioner before the Grievance Redressal Committee of the 1st respondent. The said committee on going through the entire material on record, has passed the detailed order as per Annexure-A on 5.7.2010 by concluding that the information given by the petitioner in his application is found to be false and incorrect. 3. The petitioner herein in his application at item No.14.1 mentioned his income as Rs.5,04,580/- during the relevant period. However during field verification, it was

4 found that the income tax returns filed by the petitioner for the financial year 2006-07 showed the income of the petitioner as Rs.1,48,125/- only. The petitioner has also confirmed the said fact in writing by the letter dated 22.9.2009 vide Annexure-J that his total income from all sources is Rs.1,44,945/- for the year 2006-07. He has further stated in the said letter that he became a partner of M/s Hotel Shanti Residence, Bangalore from the year 2007- 08 and his income from the said firm as well as from all sources for the year 2007-08 is Rs.5,04,580/-. The income tax returns were filed to that effect as per Annexure-E dated 4.11.2009. Thus it is clear that as on the date of filing the application, petitioner’s income was not Rs.5,04,580/-, but it was Rs.1,48,125/-. All these facts are considered by the original authority as well as the Grievance Redressal committee for coming to the conclusion that the petitioner’s application deserves to be rejected. Since this Court finds that the impugned orders

5 are just and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case and as the same are based on relevant records, no interference is called for. 4. As has been held by the Apex Court in the case of B.R. CHOWDHURY –vs- INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED – AIR 2004 SC 2770, the purpose of seeking information which has bearing on selection of candidate cannot be defeated while dealing with effect of suppression of material information. In the application itself, the petitioner has undertaken that in case if he suppresses any material fact, his application may be rejected. Since the petitioner is found to have suppressed material facts relating to his income, his application is rightly rejected by Respondent No.1. Petition fails and the same stands dismissed. Sd/- JUDGE Gss/nk-