Appeal against High Court's refusal to stay cancellation of appellant's candidature for LPG Retailership. Court held that production of non-genuine documents vitiates eligibility and no further notice is required for rejection.
The writ appeal was dismissed without costs, and pending miscellaneous applications were closed.
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.
[3488 ]
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
TUESDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF MARCH
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENW SIX
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI APARESH KUMAR STNGH AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.M. MOHIUDDIN
WRIT APPEAL NO: 261 OF 2026
writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters patent preferred against order dated 01.12.2025 in W.P.No.3361 2 ot 2025 on the file of the High Court-
Mannava Bhargava, S/o.M.gubba _Rao, aged about 32 years, Occ. Business, R/o.H.No.1-2-35195 Roaa ruo.2, prai-riant-Ggrr,-r.riirr'p"t' fioiA-, Xri;6;ily, Hyderabad-85.
AND
NO: I
Petition under section '151 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to suspend the cancellation proceedings of the respondent No.3 vide Ref.No.slDo/ND/sANT/05, dt.29.09.202s, during the pendency of writ Appeal, in the interest of justice.
Counsel for the Appellant: SRI B. MAHENDER REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.l: SRt N. BHUJANGA RAO,
DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA cou nsel for the Respondent No.2 & 3: SRI DOM INIC FE
s.c. FoR tocl
The Court made the following: JUDGMENT
II
IN THE HIGH COURT F'OR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD
r:t
AND
WRIT APPEA No.26 I of2026
Dated: 03.03.2026
Between:
Mannavil Bhargava
...Appellant
and
The Union ol'lndia,
Rep. by its Under Secretary, Petroleum and Natural Gas, Shastry Rhavan, New Delhi, and 2 others.
... Rcspondents
ti,l NT:
Letmed counsel Sri B.Mahender Reddy appears for the
appellant.
Sri N.Bhujanga Rao, leamed DeputySolicitor General of lndia,
appears fol respondentNo.l .
Sri ,)ominic Femandes,learnedStanding Counselfbr lndian Oil
Corporation Limited,appearsfor respondents No.2and 3 '
Exempted G\fDNE) LiqtrefiedPetroleurnGas (LPG) Retailcrshipat
2
\
sanathnagar, Hyderabad, was rejected by proceedings dated 29.09.2025 on the ground that the certificate o[ experience submitted from the establishment of lv{/s. Vikasni lndane was found to be not genuine upon verification from the said concern. The said proceedings was challenged by the appellant in w.p.No.336r2 of 2025. The proprietor of N4/s. vikasni Indane, in reply to the letter of Indian oil Corporation Limited (IocL) dated 20.06.2025 for verification of rhe document submitted by the appellant, gave an endorseme.t that the experience certificate produced by the appelrant was not issued or signed by him and the said document was not genuine. The rearned writ court, therefore, refused to interfere in the said proceedings and dismissed the writ petition vide judgment dated 01.12.2025. Being aggrieved, the appellant has preferred this appeal.
3' one of the argumenrs made on beharf of the apperant is that Aos' Vikasni Indane has not disputed the experience, but onry disputed the signature. Therefore, locl shourd have properry enquired about the experience of the apperant for being erigibre for award of NDNE LpG Retairership' It is further subrnitted that the advertisement issued by rhe IO.L did not specificary require the experience certificate to be submitted by any candidate interested in the retairership. [t is arso submitted during the course of argurnents that M/s. Vikasni Indane has
r'
3
I I I i
rssued rertificate to some other agency. The rearned lvrit court without appreciitting the bona fides of the apperant has refus to interrere in the order or reje*ion, though ,, ,, ;:,^;:,"_ ;etusea --''lrrv..ts,r II ls tn violation of principles of natural justice.
4' Learned standing counser for IocL has prortuced the copy of the Ietter date,d 2[].0,6'2025 containing the endorsement of the proprietor of Iws' Vika;;ni Indane, which, according to him, was arso produced during the hearin;g of the writ petition and shourd have been annexed to the memo of appear- Learned standing counser submits that the proprietor of M/s' vikasni Indane has categoricaily denied his signarure on the experience certificate said to have been issuecr by him and also endorsed that the said document was not genuine.
5.' Leanred standing counser for IocL has drawn the atrenrion of this court to rhe Apprication Format for NDNE Rerairer IocL at paragraphs I0 and 15. It is submitted that all the applicants are required to submit the experience certificate, as marks are awarded against experience rN p{rr the criteria laid down under the advertisement. Reference is macre to the IocL Serection Guiderines on appointment and 0peratiorr of :NDNE Retailers for marketing of packed NDNE LpG tO IndUStrial/CommercialSegments.As per the saicl guidelines, for
t I
experience,5marksaretobeawardecl.Itissubrrrittedthatparagrapht0
4
!I
of the Application Formar for NDNE Retailer IocL clearly indicates that if during verification it is found that the information given is incorrect/false/rnisrepresented, then the appricant's candidature will stand cancelled and will nor be eligible for NDNE LpG Retailership. Therefore, if upon verification, the experience certificate is found to be not genuine, there is no further requirement of notice or compliance of principles of natural justice before rejecting the candidature of the applicant. In these circumstances, the learned writ court was right in refusing to interfere in the matter.
\
7 - we find that the submission of experience certificate was a requirement under the advertisement and is also reflected in the format of application. The eligibility of a candidare for such selecrion depends upon the verification of the credentials by the emproyer. If on verification, such credentials or certificates are not found to be genuine, there is no further requirement on the part of the employer to seek an
5
explan:ttion from the concerned candidate for rejecting his candidature. The essential eligibility criteria prescribed by such advertisement for selection has to be fulfilled by any such interested candidate. If any false or labricated document is produced, it vitiates all the proceedings or clairn of such a candidate. In such circumstances, *e do not find any error i,r thr: impugned judgment of the learned writ court refusing to interfere in the proceedings dated 29.09.2025, whereby the candidature of the appellant was cancelled on production of the experience certiflcate,,,rhich was not flound to be genuine.
order a.s to costs.
Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.
/,TRUE COPY/
SD'.MOHD. ISMAIL REGISTRAR \ SECTION OFFICER
To
MP
9-
HIGH COURT
DATED:03/03/2426
,F
S
(J
2 4 l,i[\li 2ll?fi
* *
JUDGMENT
WA.No.261 of 2026
DISMISSING THE WRIT APPEAL WITHOUT COSTS
3 issues framed by the court
Whether rejection of candidature for LPG Retailership is valid when verification reveals submitted experience certificate is not genuine.
Whether principles of natural justice require issuing a notice when an applicant produces a false document that vitiates eligibility.
Whether the High Court below erred in refusing to interfere with the cancellation proceedings against the appellant.
Mannava Bhargava
The Union of India
Indian Oil Corporation Limited
Divisional LPG Sales Head, Secunderabad
Apreesh Kumar Singh
G.M. Mohiuddin
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
