Dismissed

Katha Venkateswara Reddy, v. The Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited

Telangana HC18 Feb 2013WP/30541/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner challenged his disqualification for claiming marks on an LPG distributorship application without holding the declared fixed deposit as of the advertisement date. The Court found the misrepresentation deliberate, not a bona fide mistake, and upheld the respondents' action.

What did the court decide?

The Writ Petition was dismissed as the disqualification was proper and not arbitrary.

Katha Venkateswara Reddy, Vs The Hindustan Petroleum… — Consumer Protection | Telangana HC (2013)

¶1

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.30541 of 2012

¶3

Date:18.02.2013

¶4

Between: Katha Venkateswara Reddy

¶5

..... Petitioner

¶6

And:

¶7

The Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited, Mumbai, Reptd., by its Managing Director and another.

¶8

.....Respondents

¶9

Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri S.Nageswara Reddy

¶10

Counsel for the Respondents: Sri B.Srinarayana

¶11

For Sri M.Ravindranath Reddy Standing Counsel for HPCL

¶12

The Court made the following: ORDER:

¶13

The petitioner filed this Writ Petition feeling aggrieved by his disqualification by the respondents for being considered for allotment of LPG distributorship for Nandikotkur.

¶14

The respondents have issued an advertisement on 01.10.2007 along with Indian Oil Corporation Limited and Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited for appointment of distributors for LPG at different places. The petitioner applied to respondent No.2-Corporation for allotment of LPG distributorship for Nandikotkur. Apart from the petitioner, various other persons also applied for distributorship in respect of the said place. During the scrutiny of the applications, it was found that the

¶15

petitioner has claimed that he has fixed deposit worth Rs.5 lakhs as on the date of the advertisement, as evident from the entries made by him in Column No.14.3 of his application. However, it was found that as on the date of the said advertisement, the petitioner did not hold any fixed deposit and that before he filed his application on 27.10.2007, he has opened an S.B. account in a nationalised bank and produced the Fixed Deposit Receipt for Rs.5 lakhs along with the application. The respondents have disqualified the petitioner on the ground that he has furnished false and misleading information. Feeling aggrieved by this action of the respondents, the petitioner filed this Writ Petition.

¶16

A detailed counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent Nos.1 and 2.

¶17

Sri S.Nageswara Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the information furnished by the petitioner, though, is inaccurate, the same was not intended to mislead the respondents. He further submitted that for not furnishing correct information, the petitioner may be denied the marks prescribed under the relevant head and that the action of the respondents in disqualifying the petitioner is unfair and unreasonable.

¶18

Sri B.Srinarayana, learned counsel representing Sri M.Ravindranath Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents, placed before the Court the advertisement which has published the full application form.

¶19

A perusal of the said advertisement would show that all the columns of the application were published. One of the sub-columns of Column No.14.3 contains the following caption “Value (Amount) as on the date of advertisement”. The application filled by the petitioner also reproduced the said Column. It is not in dispute that as on the date of the advertisement, the petitioner did not

¶20

have S.B. Account. With a view to secure marks for having fixed deposit, the petitioner has opened S.B. account and deposited Rs.5 lakhs in the fixed deposit. When the petitioner is well aware that he should hold fixed deposit as on the date of the advertisement, his action in opening the account after the issuance of the advertisement and filling sub-column of Column No.14.3 as if he held the fixed deposit as on the date of the advertisement cannot be said to be bona fide. On the contrary, it is evident from the conduct of the petitioner that he wanted to gain undue advantage of securing marks for holding fixed deposit even though he was not entitled to such marks, as he did not have the fixed deposit as on the date of the advertisement, as required by the respondents.

¶21

Learned counsel for the respondents has relied on sub-para-1 of Column No.16. To the extent it is relevant, it reads as under: -

¶22

“On verification by the Oil Company if it is found that the information given by me/us is incorrect/false/misrepresented then my/our candidature will stand cancelled and I/We will be declared ineligible for LPG Distributorship.”

¶23

In Column No.17 under the head “Undertaking”, the petitioner confirmed that the information given by him is true and correct and that any wrong information/misrepresentation/ suppression of facts will make him ineligible for the LPG distributorship.

¶24

In the face of the above-mentioned Column in the advertisement and the undertaking given by the petitioner, the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that if the petitioner did not hold the fixed deposit as on the date of the advertisement, the only consequence that may ensue is that he may not be entitled to allotment of marks for holding fixed deposit as

¶25

on the date of the advertisement cannot be sustained. The inevitable consequence of misrepresentation by the applicant is that his candidature itself will be rendered ineligible.

¶26

As this Court is convinced that the inaccurate information given by the petitioner is not on account of bona fide mistake, but, the same is deliberate, the action of the respondents in disqualifying him for consideration is proper and correct and the same does not suffer from any arbitrariness warranting interference of this Court in exercise of its discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

¶27

For the above-mentioned reasons, the Writ Petition fails and the same is accordingly dismissed.

¶28

As a sequel to dismissal of the Writ Petition, W.P.M.P.No.38953 of 2012 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is dismissed as infructuous.

¶29

____________________________ JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY 18^th February 2013 DR

Katha Venkateswara Reddy, v. The Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Katha Venkateswara Reddy, v. The Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

P. Pratap Reddy Vs The District Registrar

B.Venkateswara Reddy Vs The Reserve Bank of India, rep. by its Regional Manager

M/s. Ghanshyamdas Gems and Jewels Vs The Punjab National Bank

Daddolu Venkata Ramana Reddy, S/o.Narapa Reddy, Vs The Sub-Registrar

Mohd Mudassir Ahmed Vs The Chief Secretary of Ministry of Petroleum and Natural

- Vs -