Shivaraj v.Patil J. - (1.) THE order dated 17.3.1997 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court affirming the order dated 10.2.1997 passed by a Single Judge of the High Court in C.O. No. 17843(W) of 1996 is under challenge in this appeal.
(2.) INDIAN Oil Corporation (for short 'the Corporation') invited applications for appointment of a dealer relating to a retail outlet, on 22nd June, 1987. It was open to all but preference was to be given to the unemployed youth. The appellant was given the dealership as an unemployed youth. The appellant was engage as a Trainee Professional Sales Representative with M/s. Denis Chem Lab Limited from 23.2.1987 to 3.4.1989. He wrote 'NIL' against the relevant column relating to employment. The respondent No. 5 who had also applied for dealership filed objections before the Oil Selection Board stating that the appellant was an employee and as such he was not entitled to the benefit of preferential treatment. The Oil Selection Board prepared a panel of three candidates consisting of the appellant, respondent No. 5 and one another placing the appellant at Sr. No. 1 and the respondent No. 5 at Sr. No. 2. The respondent No. 5 filed writ application No. 19758(W) of 1995 challenging the selection of the appellant. An order was passed on 12.12.1995 in that writ petition directing the authorities of the Corporation to make a fresh consideration. Pursuant to the same, the Deputy General manager of the Corporation, Keeping in mind the finding of the Oil Selection Board, rejected the objection raised by respondent No. 5. The respondent No. 5 filed second Writ Application No. 3262 of 1996. By the order dated 27.2.1996, in the said Writ application direction was given to consider a certificate produced by the respondent No. 5 showing that the appellant was employed with M/s. Denis Chem Lab Limited. The relevant portion of the said order dated 27.2.1996 reads : "Be that as it may, the spirit of the order passed by me is quite clear and only on the ground that the said certificate had not been mentioned in my order, the authorities ought not to have brushed aside the same while considering the matter. Accordingly, I dispose of this writ application with a direction upon the said officer and/or any other officer to be appointed by the INDIAN Oil Corporation and its authorities to reconsider the matter in the light of the certificate dated 30th October, 1995 and thereafter to pass final orders after giving the parties hearing. It is made clear that running of the retail outlet shall abide by the result of the decision of the said authorities." Following the said order, the Corporation considered the matter afresh and passed the order dated 11.10.1996 cancelling the dealership given to the appellant. The appellant filed the Writ Petition C.O. No. 17843(W) of 1996 challenging the validity and correctness of the aforementioned order dated 11.10.1996 passed by the Corporation contending that the said order was perverse as the previous decision of the Corporation as well as the decision of the Oil Selection Board had not been considered; in any event, the respondent No. 5 could not have been appointed as a retail outlet dealer in his place; the appellant did not suppress any fact and even otherwise the alleged suppression could not have made any difference to the decision of the Oil Selection Board as he as a trainee was not an employee. A learned Single Judge, by the order dated 10.2.1997 after considering the rival contentions, concluded that the panel prepared by the Oil Selection Board was no more valid and in the result while upholding the cancellation of the dealership of the appellant, set aside the dealership given to the respondent No. 5. Further the Corporation was directed to take appropriate action in the matter as permissible in law. Aggrieved by this order of the learned Single Judge, the appellant, the respondent No. 5 and the Corporation filed three appeals being Appeal Nos. 445, 508 and 511 of 1997 before the Division Bench of the High Court. The Division Bench of the High Court, by a detailed and considered order dated 17.3.1997 did not find any good reason to interfere with the judgment of the learned Single Judge and dismissed all the three appeals. The appellant who was appellant in M.A.T. 445 of 1997 before Division Bench of the High Court is in appeal before this Court in this appeal. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant urged that the cancellation of dealership awarded to the appellant was mechanically cancelled by the Corporation merely on the basis of the report of enquiry made by its officer without application of mind; assuming that there was any irregularity in considering the application of the appellant for grant of dealership, it could not be said to be void. According to him, the appellant during the relevant period was working as a trainee and not as an employee and as such the termination of his dealership on the ground that he gave false information was not at all justified; the Corporation has not shown how cancellation of dealership of the appellant was justified particularly when the appellant had secured more marks in the interview conducted by the Board. The learned counsel for the Corporation made submissions supporting the impugned order.
(3.) THE learned counsel for the respondent No. 5 made submissions supporting the cancellation of dealership of the appellant and added that the reasons recorded by the learned Single Judge as well as the Division Bench of the High Court in upholding the cancellation and dealership of the appellant were fully justified. We have examined and considered the rival contentions urged on behalf of the parties having due regard to the material placed on record. The learned Single Judge not only upheld the cancellation of the dealership given to the appellant but also set aside the dealership given to the respondent No. 5. Respondent No. 5 came up to this Court in S.L.P. (C) No. 8902/97 questioning the validity of the impugned judgment to the extent he was aggrieved by the dismissal of his appeal MAT No. 508 of 1997. The SLP was dismissed by this Court on 30.4.1997. Before us, the only appeal filed by the appellant is for consideration. In this view, we are not called upon to examine the correctness of the cancellation of dealership given to the respondent No. 5 after the termination of the dealership given to the appellant earlier. In other words, we have to focus our attention and consider only the question as to whether the order of termination of the dealership given to the appellant is right in law and justified.;