In a writ petition challenging the rejection of his application for an LPG Distributorship due to prior convictions under the Gambling Act, the High Court held that gambling convictions involve moral turpitude and economic offences, thus justifying the rejection.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Ti
©
THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WRFT PETITION (C) No. ^ ^/2012 ^
PETITIONER
Deepak Kuraar Agrawal, aged about 33 ypars, S/o Late Nagarmal Agrawal, R/o Sbnarpara At Post Sariya District Raigarh
VERSUS
RESPONDENTS I/'
Indian Oil Corporation, Limited through its Chairman, Regd. Office Indian Oil Bhavan, G-9, Ali Yavar Jung Marg, ,Bandra (East), Mumbai M.S Chief Area Manager, Indian Oil Corporation Liruited, Raipur Area Office, Rajiv Gandhi Marg Telibandha, PO Ravigram Raipur C.G.
General Manager, M.P. State Office, Indian Oil Corporation, Limited ,16, Arera tehawan, Bhopal, M.P
PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA
w
'^~
^FK
-'te^^"
fflGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WRIT PETITION (0 No. 1066 of2012
PETITIONER Deepak Kumar Agrawal.
VERSUS
RESPONDENTS Indian Oil Corporation Limited & Others.
WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226_AN_D 217 QF THE_CQNSTITUTION OF INDIA
SB:JIon'b!eShn_SatisjLK^Aj:nihotn, J.
Present: Shri Parag Kotecha, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Anand Shukla, Advocate for the respondents.
ORDER
(Passed on 04th day ofOctober, 2012)
Challenge in this petition is t'o the communication dated 12.05.2012 issued by the respondent No. 2, whereby the application of the petitioner for award.'of LPG Distributorship at Sariya, District Raigarh under CC category, advertised on 01.11.2011, was rejected. The petitioner further seeks a direction to the respondent authorities to award the LPG Distributorship for the aforestated place, to the petitioner. Shri Kotecha, leamed counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner :has falfilled all. ,the basic requirement and is eligible for allotment of the Distributorship. The ground on which his application has been rejected, is not proper as fhe offecces indicated in the impugned communication are not of moral turpitude or
^-
economic offences. Thus, his candidature could not have been rejected without holding that the offences for which the petitioner was convicted, were ofmoral turpitude orwere of the nature of economic offences. Shri Kotecha further submits' that more than seven years have elapsed, and thus, his past conduct should not be taken into consideration while awarding distributorship. In support of his contention, Shri Kotecha relies on a decision of the Supreme Court in Commissioner ofPqlice & Others v. Sandeep Kumar .
On the other hand, Shri Shukla, leamed counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that clause 6(ix) of the eligibility criteria for Rajiv Gandhi Gramin LPG Vitarak (for short 'the RGGLV) as mentioned in the broucher reveals that the applicant should have not been convicted or charges been framed by any Coiirt of law for any criminal offence involving moral turpitude/economic offences. The petitioner has been imposed with a penalty offine several times under the Gambling Act since the year 2002 to 2006. Thus, looking to his conduct, his application for award of Distributorship was rejected. Even in clause 10(J) ofthe adverfisement dated 01.11.2011, it is provided that the applicant should not have been convicted for- any criminal offence including the ofEence of moral turpitude or economic offence. There is no illegality or infirmity in the order sought to be impugned
herein. . . .^_
' (2.011) 4SCC 644
^
Heard leamed counsel appearing for the parties, perosed the pleadings and documents appended thereto.
It is an admitted fact that the petitioner was conyicted several times under the provisions of Gambling Act and was imposed with penalty of fine. The adyertisement itself proyides that the applicant should not have been convicted for any criminal pffence including moral turpitude or economic offence. Even clause 6(ix) ofthe eligibility criteria for RGGLV provides that tUe applicant should not be mvolyed in any economic offence or offence related to moral turpitude. Thus, in the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the petitioner does not fulfill the criteria and norms fixed by fhe respondent Company, and his candidature was rightly rejected.
Reliance ofthe petitioner on a decision ofthe Supreme Court in Sandeep Kumar (supra), is of no assistance as the said case is related to the service jurisprudence. In the said case, the offence was committed by the petitioner therein at the age of 20 years. In the instant case, the petitiofier is aged about 33 years, and the offences appears to have been committed by him Irom the year 2002 to 2006, several times. Thus, it cannot be said that he had committed minor indiscretions at a young age 'and a lenient view caa be adopted. •
4
-/7
The Supreme Court, in Sushil Kumar Singhal v. Regional Manager, Punjab National Bank , has defined the term 'moral turpitude' as under:
"25. In 'view of the .above, it is'. evident that moral turpitude means' anything contrary to honesty, modesty or good morals. It means vileness and depravity. In fact, the conviction of a person in a crime involving moral turpitude impeaches his credibility as he has been found to • have indulged in shameful, wicked and base activities." ,
Conyiction of the petitioner in the Gambling Act and imposition of penalty, itself involves moral turpitude. The advertisement also provides that the applicaht'should not have been convicted for any criminal offence, or offence relating to moral turpitude or economic offence. Indulging ihto gambling is a clear caseofmoral turpitude and also an economic offence. Thus, the contention of the petitioner that his candidature.could not have been rejected, before holding that the that he was convicted for the offence mvolving moral turpitude, or economic offence, is rejected. . .
In view of the above, no fault can be found with the communication dated 12.05.2012 (Annexure P/3).
Amit
costs.
. Sd/SatishK.Agnihotn Judge
(2010) 8 SCC 573
3 issues framed by the court
Whether rejection of the petitioner's candidature for LPG Distributorship due to conviction under the Gambling Act constitutes a violation of the right under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution.
Whether the petitioner's repeated convictions for gambling constitute offences involving moral turpitude.
Whether the petitioner is entitled to the distributorship despite advertising criteria prohibiting criminal convictions involving moral turpitude or economic offences.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
(2011) 4 SCC 644Distinguished¶37
(2011) 4 SCC 644 · Who else cites this
Sushil Kumar Singhal v. Regional Manager, Punjab National BankRelied on¶42
(2010) 8 SCC 573 · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Deepak Kumar Agrawal
Indian Oil Corporation Limited
Satis Chandra Satyanadh Agnihotri
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
