- (1.) RAVI S. Dhavan, J. These writ peti tions were filed in 1994 and notices were issued to the respondents. All the respon dents did not reply to answer the writ peti tions. The matters were adjourned. They were listed before the Court several times. When the Court gave opportunities to the parties to complete their pleadings and yet until 3-3-1997 the counter-affidavits in answer to the writ petitions were not forthcoming from all the respondents. By this time, three years had lapsed. When the situation continued with a notice issued and no counter-affidavits from all the op posite-parties and those who replied, the oil corporations did not give clear answers, the Court, by an order of 28 April, 1997, ordered the Central Bureau of Investiga tion (CBI) to enquire into the matters in issue and submit a report. Rather than reflect on the order and the circumstances in which the Court made that order, the order itself is being reproduced: "hon'ble RAVI S. Dhavan, J. Hon'ble V. P. Goel, J. Present: For the petitioners Messrs J. M. Pant, Jitendra Kumar, For the Respondents. Union of India : Messrs Umesh Narain Sharma, Sr. Standing Counsel, Central Govern ment. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. Satyendra Nath Srivastava, Advocate. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. Dr. R. G. Padia, Senior Advocate. Oil Selection Board, U. P. and Respon dent No. 3, Sunil Kumar Khemka Prakash Padia, Advocate. These matters have been pending in the High Court for three years. On the notices is sued on the writ petitions, by this time, the pleadings should have been complete but are not. From time to time the High Court had to issue notices to the respondents to respond on the writ of the Court. All of them had not done so. In some of the cases the contesting respon dents have filed replies to the petitions. Yet in other cases even respondents like the Indian Oil Corporation have not responded to the order of the Court of 26-11-1996 in filing the pleadings exactly as the Court had desired. Though, Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. has filed its affidavit through the Zonal Manager con cerned. The Union of India has today caused a statement to be made through its Senior Stand ing Counsel, Central Government, that the Government of India does not desire to answer the petitions nor contest them as the Oil Cor porations, concerned, though Government companies in the distribution or retail of their franchise, are independent, the Oil Selection Board in reference to the context, is also independent in the manner in which it conducts its deliberations for selecting suitable persons for the retail on the distribution of products manufactured by such oil corporations/com panies, or franchised by them for sale in the market. It has further been stated by learned Senior Standing Counsel, Central Government, on instructions from the Deputy Secretary, Min istry of Petroleum, New Delhi, that 'the Union of India has no role to play in the actual selection process. Therefore, it is not a necessary party. ' The truth apparently is not emerging as in some cases the oil corporation/companies, the Oil Selection Board and a contesting respondent between the giver and the receiver, all, are simultaneously represented in one repre sentation by the same Counsel. Thus, the inter est of all three cannot be presented to the Court, independent of each other. Therefore, the truth will need to be enquired and the result has to come before the Court as the oil corpora tion/companies in these cases are public sector undertakings and the distribution of its products as a franchise is a State business. Today, after three years the Government of India informs the Court, in effect, that it has nothing to do with the merits of the case nor has any role to play in it and is not a necessary party. The Court has considered these matters at length before. Today, it had heard at length, the cases and submissions made by parties as repre sented. The issues before the court are that those who have been granted the agency, distributor ship or the franchise of the products manufac tured by these oil corporation/companies have been awarded the business as a public contract on the faith that the selection of the agents/dealers have been made strictly in ac cordance with the criteria prescribed as a stand ardised criteria nation-wide. The allegation in the writ petitions is that these contracts have been awarded by ignoring the prescribed stand ard in selecting agents, distributors or dealers for liquified petroleum gas (LPG) or petrol and petroleum by- products. The basic four criteria, amongst others, referred on record are; (a) the gross income of the person applying to deal with the franchise should not be more than Rs. 50,000/- and if unemployed the income of parents is to be taken, (b) the persons to whom the franchise for retailing the products is given must be residents of the district where the products are to be sold, (c) the persons selected must have a site, godown or a show-room as a place of business of the franchise and (d) the persons offering themselves should ensure that their close relatives are not in this business. In Writ Petition No. 23899 01 1994, Jiut Lal Jaiswal v. Sr. Regional Manager. Allahabad Regional Office, Indian Oil Corporation Limited and others, the contention is that Manish Kumar, respondent No. 4, himself does not have any income but in case the income of his parents is taken (which the prescribed criteria requires to be taken into account), the income of the father of this respondent is Rs. 70,000/ -. He is a purchase Officer in a Cloth Mill at Indore (Madhya Pradesh) and it is contended that respon dent No. 4 is a student of second year engineer ing at an engineering college in Poona, that he is not resident of Chunar or of district Mirzapur for the last five years and that he has no site of his own for the purposes of a godown or a show room. It is alleged that the uncle of respondent No. 4 one Sri Vijay Krishna Agrawal has four dealerships of the Indian Oil Corporation within the district of Mirzapur and thus this respondent is disqualified for yet another circumstance. It is also contended that the said Sri Vijay Krishna Agrawal purchased the land for respondent No. 4, who at the relevant time when the petition was filed did not run the business. Manish Kumar, respondent No. 4 has not replied to the writ petition by filing a counter-affidavit. In the counter-affidavit on behalf of the Oil Selection Board the contention is that the record is as was given by respondent No. 4. It is accepted that respondent No. 4 had passed B. Com. Examina tion from Meerut University and was 21 years of age on the date of the advertisement and was unemployed. In reference to the residential cer tificate, it has been submitted that the certificate was certified by the Pargana Magistrate, Chunar Mirzapur and this was taken for con sideration. Where was this respondent in residence at the relevant time, Poona, Meerut or Chunar ? In so far as the declaration that none of the family members are in similar business on which the franchise is to be considered, it is contended that the declaration form, submitted on behalf of respondent No. 4 stated that no close relative is in business for the sale and distributorship of the products of this oil cor poration. Is this declaration correct ? A request by the petitioner to enquire in the matter had been rejected by the Indian Oil Corporation. The dealership in issue is the retail outlet of Liquified Petroleum Gas (LPG ). In Writ Petition No. 28574 of 1994-Atiqur Rehman and others v. Oil Selection Board (U. P.) and others, the contention is that the eligibility criteria of income not exceeding Rs. 50. 000/- has been violated. It is stated that respondent No. 3, one Sunil Kumar Khemka has filed a return of income for Rs. 82,000,'- and his wife is also an income tax assessee and pays income tax and the gross income of the two from all the sources must be clubbed to reckon the income of Sri Khemka. In addition it is stated that the, aforesaid, Sunil Kumar Khemka is a partner to the extent of 20% in M/s. Jindal Yarn. The permanent account number of this respon dent as an assessee has been given and in this firm also the, aforesaid, respondent has earned an income and these incomes are in the financial year preceding the date of making of the applica tion. It is contended that the income of the, aforesaid, respondent is double the eligibility required and is on record at about Rs. 1,24,0007/ -. The other aspects of the financial status of this respondent has been given in the petition. To controvert the allegations, this respondent has not filed his affidavit about his personal affairs, but instead has arranged his submissions through the manager of his shop, known as Vijay Gas Agency and, thus, has evaded the respon sibility of answering the petition itself. The counter-affidavit of Bharat Petroleum Corpora tion Ltd. states that the matter was enquired and the total income of the respondent for the year 1992-93 was found well within the prescribed limit. Further details of the income of the said respondent are given in the rejoinder affidavit as income from a certain firm, as income from long term capital earnings and income from other sources. This case, also, is about a dealership of liquified petroleum gas (LPG ). Two Writ Peti tions No. 24953 of 1994, Sanjeev Kumar Gupta v. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. and others; Writ Petition No. 2653 of 1995, Km. Reema Vohra v. Union of India and others, relate to the same subject-matter and about the same dealership and franchise. It is alleged in these writ petitions that the franchise of the distribution of the retail outlet of petrol and petroleum products have been given to one Dr. Ajay Kumar Agrawal, respondent No. 7, resident of 592 Faltoonganj, 41 Civil Lines, Bareilly. The contention in the two writ petition is that this respondent to whom the distributorship or agency of the franchise has been settled, is otherwise a leading doctor and surgeon who is running a nursing home in the style of 'shanti Nursing Home' and he by no stretch meets with the eligibility requirement of an income of not more than Rs. 50,0007 -. On record it is contended that the, aforesaid, respondent is certainly not an unemployed per son and earns an income exceeding Rs. 50,0007-, pays interest to the U. P. Financial Corporation of more than Rs. 1, 26,0007-, interest to four other persons of more than Rs. 45,0007-; takes a depreciation on the nursing home equipment of more than Rs. 79,0007-; and his gross receipts are declared as more than Rs. 2,50,0007 -. It is contended that such a person cannot be a per son eligible to be an unemployed person to be awarded the dealership on a franchise of a retail outlet dealing with petrol and petroleum products of the Indian Oil Corporation. The aforesaid, Dr. Ajay Kumar Agarwal (respon dent No. 6 in Writ Petition No. 24953 of 1994 and respondent No. 7 in Writ Petition No. 2653 of 1995) has not replied to the Writ Petition by filing his counter-affidavit in either petition. The contention in the counter-affidavit is that ac cording to the information and declaration and other papers submitted by this respondent, his income was shown as within the prescribed limit of the eligibility criteria. The avernment in the counter- affidavit of the Indian Oil Corporation is to the effect that the information was taken as was submitted by this respondent. It is being submitted by the petitioners and stated by one of them (Writ Petition No. 2653 of 1975), on record, that when the complain was made to the Ministry of Petroleum, Government of India, New Delhi, the Income Tax return was revised. These are the facts on the pleadings and have given rise to the issues. The Court cannot en quire into nor make any comments on them, at present. The submissions which are made by the petitioners in their pleadings and the reply, as on record by oil corporation/companies, leaves the record with no reply filed by the person who has been awarded the dealership. This is respondent No. 7, Dr. Ajay Kumar Agarwal. These matters cannot continue to remain pending at the High Court. The Government of India, i. e. , Ministry of Petroleum, Government of India, New Delhi, has taken a ring-side seat and has formally stated that it has no concern with the matter. But these are matters of public accountability and the functioning of state cor porations as public sector undertakings which are Government companies, under the law and the distribution of their products as a franchise being given as a retail outlet dealership whether for petrol, petroleum products or LPG. Thus, such business of such public sector undertakings are also matters of public administration. Such matters can neither remain pending without proceeding nor uninquired. Complaints were made by the petitioners to the Corpora tions/ministry concerned. The Government of India given an occasion would like to remain aloof. Appropriately, can it take this posture when petrol and its by-products are imported and some of the products like LPG are sub sidised and the deficit is borne by the exchequer? On these facts and circumstances of con tradictions of declarations made on record by the franchise seekers and the grantors, it is con tended on behalf of the petitioners that an inde pendent inquiry is required. Such circumstances leave the Court with no option but to have the issue enquired into on the allegations made by the petitioners, as a satisfactory defence or an inclination to present it is not coming from the respondents. Such an inquiry can only be made by an independent but official agency, which inquiry the Court can direct. AIR 1985 SC 195, State of W. B. v. Sampt Lal. Such an independent agency can only be the Central Bureau of Inves tigation. Thus, these matters are assigned to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) for in quiry and submitting a report to the Court within three months from today. It will be neces sary for the CBI to go into all the pleadings on record of the Court. For this purpose, all the pleadings as of date in possession of the petitioners and the returns as replied by such of those persons, as respondents, who may have chosen to file, will be delivered to learned Stand ing Counsel for the CBI at the High Court, within one week from today. Thereafter, they will be transmitted the Headquarters of CBI. A copy of this order will be supplied to the Stand ing Counsel of the CBI forthwith by the Registry free of charge. Let the inquiry report be submitted within three months and the matter listed before the Court during the week after three months from today along with the report as submitted. Sd/-R. S. D. ,j. Sd/-VP. G. ,j. 28-4-1997"
(2.) THESE matters were listed as directed and the CBI submitted three reports two interim and a final report. THESE reports in sealed covers on being filed were opened in Court and were left on record and the cases were adjourned to enable any party to peruse the report, so filed, so that they have an opportunity to know to its contents and to make any comment on it. Suffice it to say that reports lay open on the record so that every party to the case has access to it. The first report to the CBI was filed on 27 August, 1997. The first report was, thus, opened on 5 September, 1997. The Court had indicated in that order that parties would be permitted to inspect the report which was placed on record, should they apply for it. The next report was filed with a letter dated 11 October, 1997, addressed to the Registrar, High Court. The sealed envelop was opened on 15 October, 1997, when the matters were listed. At the re quest of the contesting respondents, the report was left on record, should any party be desirous to peruse the report which the Court felt that parties to the cases were entitled to. The matter was then required to be listed on 6 November, 1997. The final report by the CBI was filed in Court. The sealed envelope containing the report was opened in Court. The report is dated 5 November, 1997. The report was left on record as the Court indicated that should any party desire to peruse the report it may. The adjourned cases were placed before the Court on 12 November, 1997. It needs to be placed on record that against none of the three reports of the CBI no party has filed objections, despite the fact that the Court had given a clear opportunity that the report be made avail able for perusal and inspection to the respondents in each case. It is no body's case that any party has been denied access to the report. In fact, in one case (Writ Petition No. 23899 of 1994), copies of the report have been taken out which fact was acknowledged by Counsel for the respon dent, concerned, that is respondent No. 4. Passages from the reports were reflected upon while the matter went into hearing.
(3.) THE Court could sum up the three reports of the CBI. But, it would be ap propriate that the Court avoids summaris ing the report and reproduce the entire text of the final report. This goes without saying that except the final report which is reproduced, there are two other previous interim reports. "secret NO. 4704/3/8-9-10/97-SUI. I/sic-I/new Delhi : Dated 5-11-1997. FINAL INVESTIGATION REPORT OF THe CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVES TIGATIOn IN THE MATTER OF WRIT PETI TION NOS.- 1. Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 23899 of 1994 Jiut Lal Jaiswal. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . petitioner Versus Senior Regional Manager Allahabad and others. . . . . . . . . . . Respondents 2. Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 28754 of 1994 Atiqur Rehman and others. . . . . . Petitioner Versus Oil Selection Board (UP) and Ors. Respondents 3. Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 24953 of 1994 Sanjeev Kumar Gupta. . . . . . . . . . . Petitioner Versus Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. and Ors. . . . . . . Respondents 4. Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 2653 of 1995, Kumari Reema Vohra. . . . . . . . . . . . . Petitioner Versus Union of India and others. . . Respondents In pursuance to the order dated 28-4-1997 by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ravi S. Dhavan and Hon'ble Mr. VP. Goel in the Civil Misc. Writ petition mentioned above, the Central Bureau of Investigation has registered three cases on 4-6-1997. (A) RC. 8 (A) '97-SIU-I/sic. I under Sec tion 120-B, IPC read with Sec. 13 (1) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 punishable under Section 13 (2), PC Act relating to the allotment of LPG Distributorship at Saharanpur to Shri Sunil Kumar Khemka arising out of Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 28574 of 1994 filed by Atiqur Rehman and others. (B) RC. 9 (C) 97-SIU-I under Section 120-B, IPC read with Section 13 (1) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 punishable under Sec tion 13 (2), PC Act relating to the allotment retail outlet dealership to Dr. Ajay Kumar Aganval at Nawab Gunj, Distt. Bareilly, UP arising out of Civil Misc. Petition No. 24953 of 1994 filed by Shri Sanjeev Kumar Gupta and Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 2653 of 1995 filed by Kumari Reema Vohra. (C) RC. 10 (A) 97-SIU-I/sic-I under Sec tion 120-B IPC, read with 13 (1) (d) of Preven tion of Corruption Act, 1988 punishable under Section 13 (2) PC Act relating to the allotment of LPG distributorship to Shri Manish Kumar Agarwal of Chunar, Distt. Mirzapur, UP arising out of Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 23899 of 1994 filed by Shri Jiut Lal Jaiswal. THE Central Bureau of Investigation has conducted the investigation relating to the aforesaid three cases and submitted status reports dated 29-8-1997 and 13-10-1997 before the Hon'ble High Court. THE Hon'ble High Court was pleased to pass the order and directed CBI to complete the investigation by 6- 11-97 and file the report under Section 173, Cr. P. C. in the competent court. THE investigation relating to the eligibility of the allottees and the ir regularities connected thereto have been com pleted and the result of the same are as under: (A) RC-8 (A)/97-STU-I/cbi/sic : I/new Delhi relating to allotment of LPG distributor ship at Saharanpur to Shri Sunil Kumar Khemka arising out of Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 28574 of 1994 filed by Atiqur Rehman and others. Shri Atiqur Rehman and Shri Bal Krishan Garg filed writ petition No. 28574/94 before Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad against Oil Selection Board UP Lucknow respondent No. 1, Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. Divisional Office, Agra respondent No. 2, Shri Sunil Kumar Khemka, respondent No. 3 and others alleging illegal allotment of LPG Dis tributorship to Shri Sunil Kumar Khemka respondent No. 3 by Bharat Petroleum Cor poration Ltd. on the recommendation of Oil Selection Board U. P. through an interview held on 10/11-5-1994 at Hotel Madhuban Dehradun. It was also alleged that the allotment was against the laid down criteria due to the below mentioned reasons:- (i) That Shri Sunil Kumar Khemka respondent No. 3 and his wife Smt. Renu Khem ka were regular income tax payee during the financial year 1992-93 and that Shri Sunil Kumar Khemka had filed his income tax return of Rs. 82,000/- for the said financial year which was immediately before the date of making the application. Smt. Renu Khemka had also filed income tax return for the Financial Year 1992-93 claiming net income of Rs. 26,000/ -. (ii) That Shri Sunil Kumar Khemka was a partner to the extent of 20% in M/s. Jindal Yarns, a Hindu undivided family concern. Shri Sunil Kumar Khemka has been shown to have earned an income of Rs. 16. 000/- from M/s. Jindal Yarns in the financial year immediately proceeding the date of making the application. Thus, total annual income of Sunil Kumar Khemka was Rs. 1,24,000/- which is more than two times of the upper limit mentioned in the criterial for eligibility for making the application. (iii) That Shri Sunil Kumar Khemka belonged to the wealthiest and most prominent family of Saharanpur and his family possessed a number of trade concerns, sprawling groves, residential Kothies and land worth several crores of rupees. (iv) That the Oil Selection Board respon dent No. 1 had interviewed the candidates with pre- determination and the conducting of the interview was a mere formality. (v) That the Chairman of Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. respondent No. 2 did not take action on the protest representation of Shri Atiqur Rehman petitioner No. 1 and simply forwarded it to the Oil Selection Board. (vi) That one Shri R. P. Dhiman had also made a protest representation to the Hon'ble Minister for Petroleum, Union of India, New Delhi regarding illegal allotment of LPG Dis tributorship to Sh. Sunil Kumar Khemka. During investigation it has been found that below mentioned eligibility should be possessed by an applicant for being considered by the Oil Selection Board to assess his suitability on merit against the prescribed criteria :- THE applicant should be:- (i) Indian by nationality. (ii) Not less than 21 years of age and not more than 50 years of age at the time of making application. (iii) Minimum matriculation or recog nised equivalent educational qualification. (iv) Resident of the concerned Distt. for the period of not less than 5 years immediately preceding the date of application. (v) Having family (as defined in the ap plication form) income of not more than Rs. 50. 000/- annually (last financial year) inclusive of other members of the family. (vi) Not having any dealership/distributor ship of any oil company. (vii) Having no close relation (as defined in the application form) as a dealer/distributor ship of any oil company. (10) THE Oil Selection Board (UP) com prising a member and a Chairman, held the interviews on 10/11- 5-94 at Dehradun, of the eligible applicatnts for the allotment of LPG Distributorship at Saharanpur and declared Shri Sunil Kumar Khemka as the most suitable candidate by awarding highest marks to him during the interview. (6) THE analysis of the facts and cir cumstances as have come on record during investigation have established the following facts:- (i) That Sunil Kumar Khemka respondent No. 3 had income in excess of Rs. 50. 000/- in the relevant year. He had filed income tax returns twice in the financial year 1992-93. He filed his original return on 28-10- 1993 declaring his net income as Rs. 82,094/- and also reflected the deduction of Rs. 7,000/- under Section 80-L of Income Tax Act. Shri Khemka had then revised his first return on 1-11-93 declaring his total income as Rs. 23,160/- and alsp reflected his deduction of Rs. 7,000/- availed under Section 80-Lof Income Tax Act. (ii) That Smt. Renu Khemka, w/o Sunil Kumar Khemka also filed income tax return in the financial year 1992-93 wherein her total in come was reflected as Rs. 25,827/ -. THE deduc tion availed under Section 80-L for Rs. 874 has also been reflected in his return. (iii) Shri Sunil Kumar Khemka was also found to be one of the HUF partners in M/s. Jindal Yarns to the extent of 20% share. During the financial year 1992-93 this firm earned a profit of Rs. 6605. 26 and Sunil Kumar Khemka received his share of profit as Rs. 1 32 1. 05. (iv) That Sunil Kumar Khemka has also filed his HUF return for the financial year 1992-93 for Rs. 20,830/- in the Income Tax Office, Saharanpur. In this manner Sunil Kumar Khemka was found to be having income exceeding Rs. 50,000/- in the financial year 1992-93 which is detailed as below : - As per the original Income Tax Return filed on 28-10-93 by Sunil Kumar Khemka and his wife Smt. Renu Khemka, their gross income was as under: - (i) THE gross income of Sunil Kumar Khemka = 98,0947- (ii) THE gross income of Smt. Renu Khem ka = 26,7017- (iii) Total income = 1, 15,7957- As per the revised income tax return filed by Sunil Kumar Khemka on 1-11-93, their gross income was as under : - (i) Gross income of Sunil Kumar Khemka = 70,1007- (ii) Gross income of Smt. Renu Khemka = 26,7017- (iii) Total gross income = 96,8017- Shri Sunil Kumar Khemka in his HUF return filed by him for the financial year 1992-93 had claimed HUF income of Rs. 20,8307 -. Thus the investigation has established that the total gross income of Sunil Kumar Khemka and family for the Financial year 1992-93 comes to Rs. 1,17,631/- which by all counts is in excess of the upper limit laid down in the eligible criteria for making an application for the allot ment of LPG Distributorship. THE final assessment order of income in respect of both Shri and Smt. Sunil Kumar Khemka was passed by the Income Tax authorities and his income was assessed as Rs. 96. 8017 -. It is pertinent to mention that no appeal has been made against the said assess ment order. As regards the allegations of pre-deter-mination and conducting of an interview as a mere formality, the analysis of the facts and cir cumstances as collected during investigation has established as under:- (a) THE analysis that no objective and con sistent yardstick was applied in the awarding of marks to the applicants by the Member and Chairman of the Board in respect of educational qualification, extra curricular activities and capacity to arrange finance to run the franchise. No correlation is visible between the relevant merits of the applicants in terms of the educa tional qualification and marks awarded to each one of them by the Member and the Chairman of the Oil Selection Board. (b) It is pertinent to mention that as per evidence on record the marks to the candidates appearing for interview at Dehradun were not recorded by the members of the Oil Selection Board on the sport itself but mark sheets were reportedly filed and prepared at Lucknow Headquarter of the Oil Selection Board after return from Dehradun. (c) THE scrutiny of the mark sheet has revealed that there are certain variations in the handwriting of marks given in the mark- sheets by the members of the Board especially with reference to the marks given to Sh. Sunil Kumar Khemka. THE said mark-sheets have been sent to the Central Forensic Science Laboratory, New Delhi to determine the authorship of the alterations/variations. In view of the above stated notable dis crepancies noticed in the mark-sheets of the interviews conducted by the Oil Selection Board a final view about the factual position vis-a-vis this allegation of sanctity of interview can be taken by the CBI only on receipt of the expert opinion from Central Forensic Science Laboratory, CBI has requested Director, CFSL to furnish the requisite expert opinion on top priority so that we can file the report before this Hon'ble Court timely. However, Director, CFSL vide his letter No. CFSL/97/d/578/5313, dated 4-11-97 intimated that in view of volume of work pending with the CFSL, it will be able to furnish the requisite information upto Decem ber, 1997. On receipt of the expert opinion in respect of questioned documents and in the light of evidence already on record an appropriate decision will be taken as to the criminal liability of the individual public servants associated with this allotment at different stages. As regards the allegation against Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. , Respondent No. 2 that a complaint dated 10-6-94 was made by the Petitioner No. 1 to its Chairman, it is revealed that on receipt of the aforesaid protest repre sentation an enquiry was ordered on 15-6-94 by the Chairman/osb which was conducted by the Divisional Manager, BPCL, Agra and the find ings of the enquiry were forwarded to Oil Selec tion Board on 13-7-94 by the Divisional Manager, BPCL, Agra. In the enquiry com plaints of both S/shri Atiqur Rehman and R. P. Dhiman were enquired into and it was found by the Enquiry Officer that the income of Shri Sunil Kumar Khemka and his wife was Rs. 48,984/-for the financial year 1992-93 as per their in come tax return. However, the scrutiny of en quiry report reveals that the enquiry officer has missed out certain vital facts pertaining to the income tax assessment done by the Income Tax Authorities for the relevant period and has thus come to incorrect conclusion about the gross income of Sh. Sunil Kumar Khemka. Perusal of the enquiry report further reveals that enquiry officer has taken into account the net income of Sh. Sunil Kumar Khemka and his wife instead of the gross income as mentioned in the criteria laid down by the Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. Further, the enquiry officer did not ap proach income tax authorities to verify the fac tual position as to the gross income of Sunil Kumar Khemka and his family members. Thus, the investigation conducted so far has prima facie established that Shri Sunil Kumar Khemka has willfully misrepresented in respect of his gross income in order to make the application for the allotment of LPG Dis tributorship. But for this misrepresentation, he would not have been eligible for making applica tion and getting allotment. He has been ap parently facilitated/helped by some public ser vants associated with the processing of the ap plication and conducting of interview. However, the criminal liability or otherwise of the in dividual public servants could be determined only on the receipt of expert's opinion on the authorship of the documents referred to the Central Forensic Science Laboratory, New-Delhi. THE report under Section 173, Cr. PC. will be filed against Sunil Kumar Khemka and/or public servants after observing statutory provisions of sanctions for prosecution. RC. 9 (S)-97-SIU-I/sic-I relating to the allotment retail outlet dealership to Dr. Ajay Kumar Agarwal at Nawab Gunj, Distt. Bareilly, U. P. arising out of Civil Misc. Petition No. 24953 of 1994 filed by Sanjeev Kumar Gupta and Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 2653 of 1995 filed by Kumari Reema Vohra. Shri Sanjeev Kumar Gupta and Kumari Reema Vohra filed Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 24953/94 and Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 2653/95 respectively before Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad against Dr. Ajay Kumar Agarwal and others making various allegations in the allotment of retail outlet dealership to Dr. Ajay Kumar Agarwal by Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. , on the recommendation of Oil Selection Board, U. P. which held interviews on 16-1-94 at Hotel Oberoi Anand, Bareilly, to assess the ap plicants for their suitability for the allotment of a retail outlet/dealership against the laid down criteria. Aforesaid Civil Misc. Writ Petitions, the below mentioned allegations were made against Dr. Ajay Kumar Aggarwal and others: (i) That the franchise of distribution of retail outlet of petroleum product was given to Dr. Ajay Kumar Aggarwal, R/o 592 Faltoon Ganj, 41 Civil Lines, Bareilly, who otherwise was a leading doctor and surgeon and was running a nursing home in the name and style of Shanti Nursing Home and who by no stretch of im agination was within the eligible requirement of income of not more than Rs. 50,000/ -. (ii) That Dr. Ajay Kumar Aggarwal, was not an unemployed person. His income ex ceeded Rs. 50,000/- per annum and as per his income tax return declaration. He paid salary and wages to his employees exceeding Rs. 86,000/- per annum. He was also allegedly paying interest to the U. P. Financial Corpora tion Ltd. of more then Rs. 1,26,000/- per annum and also to four other persons to the tune of more than Rs. 45,000/- per annum. Dr. Ajay Kumar Agarwal allegedly took benefit of depreciation on the nursing home equipment of more than Rs. 79. 000/ -. It is alleged that as per the income tax return 'for the financial year 1992-93 his gross receipt declaration is more than Rs. 2,50,000/ -. It was also alleged that Dr. Ajay Kumar Agarwal had also rental income of Rs. 10,000/- per month from Vijay Bank, Bareilly and also an income of Rs. 1,000 per month from a chemist shop rented out in the Shanti Nursing Home. (iii) That Dr. Ajay Kumar Agarwal did not declare the income of his wife and children while making an application for the allotment of retail outlet/dealership and that Dr. Ajay Kumar Agarwal had declared his total income as Rs. 66,140/- and agricultural income as Rs. 18,200/- in the income tax return for the financial year 1992-93. (iv) That Dr. Ajay Kumar Agarwal had played fraud by giving false declaration and an affidavit in collusion and connivance with the authorities of the Oil Selection Board, U. P. and of Indian Oil Corporation. He tried to cover up the false declaration by filing a revised income tax return and affidavit in an effort to cover up the fraud. (v) That Dr. Ajay Kumar Agarwal was given the allotment of retail outlet/dealership at Nawabgunj Bareilly arbitrarily and illegally and that Dr. Ajay Kumar Agarwal did not fulfill the mandatory qualification for the grant of retail outlet/dealership. (vi) Further it was alleged that a complaint was made to the Ministry of Petroleum, Govt. of India, New Delhi and concerned corporations. During the investigation it has been found that following eligibility should be possessed by an applicant for being considered by the Oil Selection Board, to assess their suitability for the allotment of dealership:- THE APPLICANT SHOULD BE- (a) Indian by nationality. (b) Not less than 21 years of age and not more than 50 years of age at the time of making application. (c) Minimum matriculation or recognised equivalent educational qualification. (d) Resident of the concerned Distt. for the period of not less than 5 years immediately preceding the date of application. (e) Having family (as defined in the ap plication form) income of not more than Rs. 50,000/- annually (last financial year) inclusive of other members of the family. (f) Not having any dealership/distributor ship of any oil company. (g) Having no close relation (as defined in the application form) as a dealer/distributorship of any oil company. THE Oil Selection Board (U. P.) Lucknow comprising of a Member and a Chairman held interview on 16-1 - 94 at Bareilly and assessed Dr. Ajay Kumar Aggarwal as most suitable can didate on the basis of the highest marks awarded by the Oil Selection Board during the interview. Analysis of the facts and circumstances as have come on record during the course of inves tigation has established the following facts :- (i) That Dr. Ajay Kumar Aggarwal was found to be running a well equipped nursing home under the name and style of Shanti Nurs ing Home at Bareilly. (ii) That as per income tax record the income of Dr. Ajay Kumar Agarwal exceeded Rs. 50. 000/- per annum during the relevant period As per the income tax record of Dr. Ajay Kumar Aggarwal and his wife Smt. Priti Agar wal, their gross income was found to Rs. 1,55,516/- for the financial year 1992-93. As per the revised income tax returns filed by Dr. Ajay Kumar Agarwal and his wife, their gross income for the relevant period was found to Rs. 1,37,0387 -. Thus, it was established that during the relevant period that the gross income of Dr. Ajay Kumar Aggarwal and his family was far exceeding the prescribed limit of Rs. 50,0007-per annum. (iii) That Dr. Ajay Kumar Agarwal was paying Rs. 95,000/- per annum as salary to the employees working in his Shanti Nursing Home. (iv) That in the year 1988 and 1990, Dr. Ajay Kumar Agarwal had taken two loans of Rs. 7. 5. lakhs and 5. 2. lakhs from U. P. Financial Cor poration Ltd. He also paid a sum of Rs. 1,21,800/- to UPFC as interest against the said loans. He has also repaid a sum of Rs. 50,000/- as principal amount to UPFC against the aforesaid loans during the relevant period. (v) That it could not be substantiated on the basis of oral or documentary evidence that Dr. Ajay Kumar Agarwal was paying an interest amount to 4 other persons. (vi) That Dr. Ajay Kumar Agarwal took the benefit of depreciation of Rs. 79,0007-on the equipment of the Nursing Home. He claimed this depreciation in the income tax return filed for the financial year 1992-93. In his income tax return he has shown Rs. 2,46,565/- as gross receipts, Rs. 2,21,808/- as rental income, Rs. 1,050/- as income from interest. Thus the total of the gross receipt, income from rent and from interest comes to Rs. 4,79,423/ -. (vii) Thus it was established that Dr. Ajay Kumar Agarwal had income of more than Rs. 50,000/- during the relevant period and was thus not eligible for the allotment of the retail outlet dealership at Nawabgunj, Distt. Bareilly, U. P. As regards the allegation that the com plaint was made to the Ministry of Petroleum, Government of India, New Delhi and con cerned corporation alleging the irregularities in the allotment of retail outlet dealership to Dr. Ajay Kumar Agarwal, the investigation has dis closed that Shri Sanjeev Kumar Gupta had made a complaint dated 25-3-94 to the Ministry of Petroleum and to Oil Selection Board, UP. On 5- 4-94, the Oil Selection Board ordered the Chief Div. Manager, Indian Oil Corporation Bareilly, to conduct enquiry in the said com plaint. THE enquiry into the complaint was con ducted by Mr. Nazmi, the then Dy. Manager Sales, Indian Oil Corporation who concluded that the income of Dr. Ajay Kumar Agarwal to be Rs. 47. 060/- i. e. less than Rs. 50. 000/- Shri Nazmi took into account only the net income of Dr. Ajay Kumar Agarwal and also did not in clude the income of Preeti Agarwal wife of Dr. Ajay Kumar Agarwal. Shri Nazmi also did not conduct enquiries from the concerned Income Tax Authority. THE investigation revealed that Shri M. G. Khan and Shri Nazmi were found to be involved as such they reported to have been committed certain irregularities while perform ing their official duties. It was found that Shri M. G. Khan was assigned the duty to check the original documents of the candidates at the time of interview for the dealership Dr. Ajay Kumar Aggarwal was supposed to produce the original documents in support of his income and as per the income tax return of Dr. Ajay Kumar Aggar wal filed op 30-8-93 his total declared income was Rs. 84,340/ -. This return was revised only on 19-7-94 which means that at the time of inter view the income of Rs. 84. 340/-was existing. Shri M. G. Khan was found to have failed to ap preciate the relevant required documents in this case for consideration and he appreciated the documents visualised income tax return for the year 1991-92 which was not relevant in this case. At this stage it would be worthwhile to appreciate that under what circumstances the Hon'ble Chairman and the member of the said interview board acted on the basis of a wrongful statement of Income Tax Return for the relevant period. Further, there is nothing on record to show if any explanation was called for the said conduct of Dr. Ajay Kumar Agarwal as well as the said income tax return (for the Finan cial Year 1991-92) was not objected by the Hon'ble Chairman and the member of the inter view board at the time of perusal of the same. As regards the illegal and arbitrary allot ment of retail outlet/dealership to Dr. Ajay Kumar Agarwal, the analysis of the facts and circumstances collected during the course of investigation shows that no objective and consis tent yard stick was applied in awarding of marks to the applicant by the Member and Chairman of the Board in respect of educational qualifica tion, extra curricular activities and full time working capacity to run the franchise. No co-relation is visible between the relevant merits of the applicant in terms of educational qualifica tion and the marks awarded to each of them by the Member and the Chairman of the Oil Selec tion Board. THE scrutiny of the mark sheets show that there certain additions and variations are present in the mark sheets. THE said mark sheets have been sent to Central Forensic Science Laboratory, New Delhi, to determine the authorship of the alterations/variations. In view of the above stated notable dis crepancies noticed in the mark sheets of the interviews conducted by the Oil Selection Board, a final view about the factual position vis-a-vis allegation of sanctity of the interview can be taken by the CBI only on receipt of expert opinion from Central Forensic Science. Laboratory. THE CBI has requested Director, CFSL to furnish the requisite expert opinion on top priority so that we can file the report before this Hon'ble court (sic) timely. However, Direc tor, CFSL vide his letter No. CFSL/97/d/578/5313 dated 4-11-97 intimated that in view of volume work pending with the CFSL and that involved in this reference, it will not be able to furnish the requisite information before Dec. 1997. On receipt of the expert opinion in respect of questioned documents and in the light of the evidence on record, an ap propriate decision will be taken as to the criminal liability of the individual public servants as sociated with the allotment at different stages. Thus the investigation conducted so far has prima facie established that Dr. Ajay Kumar Agarwal has willfully misrepresented in respect of his gross income in order to make the applica tion for the allotment of retail outlet dealership. But for this misrepresentation, he would not have been eligible for making application and getting allotment. He has been apparently facilitated/helped by some public servant as sociated with processing of application and con ducting of interview. However the criminal liability or otherwise of the individual public servant could be determined only on the receipt of experts' opinion on the authorship of the documents referred to the Central Forensic Science Laboratory, New Delhi. THE report under Section 173, Cr. P. C. will be filed against Dr. Ajay Kumar Agarwal and/or public servant after observing statutory provisions of sanction for prosecution. RC. 10 (A) 97-SIU. I/sic. I relating to the allotment of distributorship to Shri Manish Kumar of Chunar, Distt. Mirzapur, U. P. arising out of Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 23899 of 1994 filed by Shri Jiut Lal Jaiswal. Shri Jiut Lal Jaiswal s/o Kalu Ram Jaiswal filed Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 23899/94 before Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad against Shri Manish Kumar, the allottee, Sr. Regional Manager, Indian Oil Corporation, Divisional Office, Allahabad and others alleging illegal allotment of LPG Distributorship to Shri Manish Kumar by the IOCL on the recommen dation of Oil Selection Board, UP which held interviews on 17-9-93 at Hotel Malati, Varanasi for the eligible applicants to assess their suitability against the laid down criteria. It was alleged in the aforesaid Writ Peti tion that Manish Kumar Agarwal did not have income of his own and if the income of his parents is taken into account the same comes to Rs. 70,000/- per annum. It was also alleged that said Manish Kumar was a second year student in an Engineering College at Puna and that he was not resident of Chunar for the last five years. It was also alleged that said Manish Kumar had no site of his own for the purpose of godown and that Uncle of Manish Kumar had dealership of Indian Oil Corporation within District Mir zapur. It is also alleged in the said petition that Shri Jiut Lal petitioner was selected for the allot ment of LPG distributorship and an intimation was also issued to him in this regard. He, how ever, was not allotted the distributorship as the money had changed hands. During investigation it has been found that below mentioned eligibility should be pos sessed by an applicant for being considered by the Oil Selection Board to assess his suitability on merit against the prescribed criteria:- THE applicant should be: (i) Indian by nationality. (ii) Not less than 21 years of age and not more than 50 years of age at the time of making application. (iii) Minimum matriculation or recog nised equivalent educational qualification. (iv) Resident of the concerned Distt. for the period of not less than 5 years immediately preceding the date of application. (v) Having family (as defined in the ap plication form) income of not more than Rs. 50,000/- annually (last financial year) inclusive of other members of the family. (vi) Not having any dealership/distributor ship of any Oil Company. (vii) Having no close relation (as defined in the application form) as a dealer/distributor ship of any Oil Company. THE Oil Selection Board (U. P.) comprising of two Members and the Chairman held inter view on 17-9-93 at Varanasi, U. P. which assessed Shri Manish Kumar as the most suitable can didate on the basis of highest marks awarded by the Oil Selection Board during the interview. THE analysis of the facts and circumstan ces as have come on record during the course of investigation have established the following facts:- (i) That Mainsh Kumar was very much dependent upon his father Sh. Gyan Prakash Aggarwal who was Material Manager in Indo Rama Synthetic India Ltd. , Indore (M. P.) and received salary for the financial year 1991-92 amounting to Rs. l,07,637/ -. only. Shri Manish Kumar is not dependent upon his uncle. (ii) That Manish Kumar concealed the income of his father on whom he was actually dependent and misrepresented the income before OSB and IOCL so that the allotment of LPG distributorship can be allotted in his favour. (iii) That Manish Kumar was not resident of Chunar in the relevant period from 1988 to 1993. He fraudulently obtained the domicile certificate from SDM, Chunar who was not em powered to issue certificate to Manish Kumar. It is further established that in the relevant period he was residing with his father at Indore (M. P ). (iv) That as regards the allegation being a 2nd year student of Engineering College, Pune, the same could not be substantiated as Manish Kumar has been found to have completed his B. Com. from MMH College Ghaziabad in the academic session of 1990-92. (v) That as regards the allegation of dealership being possessed by the uncle of Manish Kumar within Distt. Mirzapur, the same could not be substantiated in the absence of the identity of the so-called uncle. No close relative of Manish Kumar was found to be a dealer of IOCL. (vi) As regards the allegation that Shri Jiut Lal Jaiswal, petitioner was selected for the LPG Dealership and that an intimation was also is sued to him in this regard, the investigation has established that Shri Jaiswal had attended the interview on 17-9-1993 at Malati Hotel, Varanasi (U. P.) but he was not selected for said dealership. Shri Jiut Lal Jaiswal claimed that he had received the letter of intent by OSB for selection of said dealership. Investigation revealed that said letter No. 3528/10-11-93 which was signed by Shri Bindeshwari Prasad, PA of Chairman is not a letter of intent but it is letter of regret which was issued to Shri Jiut Lal Jaiswal in response to his interview dated 17-9-93. Letter of intent is issued by locl/concerned Oil Company and not by Oil Selection Board. Thus the investigation has established that Manish Kumar willfully misrepresented his status of domicile and income but for which he was not eligible; for applying for the LPG dis tributorship. It has also been established that said Manish Kumar did not submit the proof of his income in the pro forma prescribed by Indian Oil Corporation. As per the requirement he was required to give income of his parents. He how ever mentioned the income as that of his uncle that too without specifying the name of his uncle. However, the authorities of Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. and Oil Selection Board enter tained his application on the basis of defective affidavit declaring his income. (vii) That there are apparent variations in handwriting in respect of marks entered in the mark-sheet prepared by the Members of Oil Selection Board (U. P.) especially with reference to Manish Kumar. THE analysis of awarding of marks to applicant by the members of Board in respect of the educational/extra curricular ac tivities and capacity to arrange finance to run the franchise applied for shows that the Board Members have apparently not followed any comprehensible criteria in awarding marks to the applicants e. g. no co-relation visible between the relevant merits of the applicant in terms of educational qualification and marks allotted by the Members of the OSB. THE said mark-sheets have been sent to Central Forensic Science Laboratory, New Delhi to determine the authorship of the alterations/variations. In view of the above stated notable dis crepancies noticed in the mark-sheets of the interviews conducted by the Oil Selection Board a final view about the factual position vis-a-vis this allegation of sanctity of interview can be taken by the CBI only on receipt of the expert opinion from Central Forensic Science Laboratory. CBI has requested Director, CFSL to furnish the requisite expert opinion on top priority so that we can file the reports before this Hon'ble Court timely. However, Director, CFSL vide his letter No. CFSL/97/d/578/5313 dated 4-11-97 intimated that in view of volume of work pending with the CFSL, it will be able to furnish the requisite information up to Dec. 1997. On receipt of the expert opinion in respect of questioned documents and in the light of evidence already on record an appropriate decision will be taken as to the criminal liability of the individual public servants associated with this allotment at different stages. From the facts and circumstances which have come on the record it is established beyond any reasonable doubt that Sh. Manish Kumar willfully misrepresented domicile and income conditions of his eligibility for the allotment of LPG Distributorship by the Indian Oil Corpora tion Ltd. on the recommendation of Oil Selec tion Board, (UP ). But for this misrepresenta tion, he would not have been eligible for making application and getting allotment of LPG dis tributorship. He has been apparently facilitated/helped by some public servants as sociated with the processing of application and conducting of interview. However, the criminal liability or otherwise of the individual public servant could be determined only on the receipt of expert opinion on the authorship on the ques tioned documents referred to the Central Forensic Science Laboratory, New Delhi. THE report under Section 173, Cr. PC. will be filed against Manish Kumar and/or public servants after observing statutory provisions of sanction for prosecution. CONCLUSIOn (A) Sunil Kumar Khemka, the allottee of LPG distributorship at Saharanpur U. P. wilfully misrepresented the facts in respect of his gross an enquiry be recalled. THEre was no judg ment in the case as the enquiry report in pursuance of the Court's order was awaited. Subsequently, this application was not pressed. In effect, it was a review application to receive an order that a CBI enquiry be not ordered. 8. Learned Senior Advocate appear ing in Writ Petition No. 23899 of 1994 put in his main thrust on the aspect that the statements or records on which the CBI had relied its report ought to be given to the contesting respondents. THE argument was ingenuously put requiring an inves tigating agency to disclose the statements or records which would virtually mean giving the contesting respondents the case diaries. This law has been clearly settled that unless the investigation concludes in the filing a charge-sheet, the person who is being enquired upon cannot have access to the statements or case diaries on the basis of which the enquiry is in progress or is based. Thus, the Court could not require the CBI to give the statements or records to the contesting respondent on whose behalf the argument was made or, for that matter, any of the respondents. 9. In Writ Petition No. 24953 of 1994 and Writ Petition No. 2653 of 1995, the complaint is about the franchise of a petrol and diesal outlet having been given to one Dr. Ajay Kumar Agarwal. In this writ petition, the contesting respondent was under notice, but evaded to file a counter-affidavit (Writ Petition No. 24953 of 1994) until after the Court had ordered an enquiry by the CBI. He filed his counter- affidavit in Court in July 1997. Counsel who appears on his behalf is Mr. Subodh Kumar. No counter- affidavit was filed in the other writ petition. Learned Counsel for this respondent contended that he has instructions to appear in Writ Petition No. 24953 of 1994 and he is without instructions in the other writ peti tion (Writ Petition No. 2653 of 1995 ). THE Court has permitted this Counsel to ad dress the Court on both the writ petitions as it will be fair that if he represents the subject-matter in one petition, he ought not to be denied the opportunity to make submissions on a technicality in the other petition. He made the same arguments submitted, on behalf of the respondent on the petition from Mirzapur. In effect, his submissions were that the statements or records upon which the CBI has based its report ought to be supplied to the contest ing respondent. 10. THE third case is from the District of Saharanpur. This is Writ Petition No. 28574 of 1994. THE contesting respondent in this case is Sunil Kumar Khemka, respondent No. 3. He has not filed a counter- affidavit himself, but sent his Manager for making submissions in a counter-affidavit on his behalf. He evaded the personal responsibility of submitting before the Court. On his behalf, now, Dr. R. G. Padia, Senior Advocate, appears, as sisted by Mr. Prakash Padia, Advocate, previously, the record bears out that when notice was issued on this petition on 31 August, 1994, Dr. R. G. Padia received notice on behalf of respondent No. 1, the Oil Selection Board, U. P. Lucknow and Indian Oil Corporation, Kapoorthala Complex, Aliganj, Lucknow. THE endorse ment in orginal is on the petition. THE notice was received prior to the filing of the petition. THE Court brought this to the notice of learned Counsel, aforesaid, as in 1994, Dr. R. G. Padia was not a Senior Advocate. Learned Counsel submitted that the act of receiving notices on behalf of the respondent No. 1 was a mistake, as he appears on behalf of respondent No. 3 on whose behalf a Vakalatnama was filed, subsequently. THE Court mentions this matter, but leaving it entirely up to Coun sel as to on whose behalf he would like to appear. Mistake apart, as having accepted notice on behalf of a body which selects and recommends grants of franchises and then appearing for a selected candidate does not appear to be correct in principle. Yet, the court permitted submissions to be made on behalf of respondent No. 3. On behalf of this respondent, his Counsel's contention was that the CBI reports which have been filed are not worth the paper on which they have been written; are no evidence under the Evidence Act, 1872; that the material collected during inves tigation be supplied; that the reliefs which have been sought by the petitioners can not be granted; that no centiorari has been claimed and that the petitioners have not declared their own eligibility before filing the petition and that none of the petitioners are candidates, but outsiders having no interest in the list. THE last submission was that, regard being had to the circumstances of a case decided by the Court reported in 1997 ALJ 1456, Ajay Pratap Singh v. Chairman, Oil Selection Board, Lucknow, this Court cannot go into the merits of the matter. 11. THE Court will take up each of the submissions one by one. In so far as providing the contesting respondents the statements and records on the basis of which the report is based, the Supreme Court had settled this mater In re. Director, CBI and others v. Niyamavedi and others, 1995 (5) JT 401. THE High Court should not seem to be affecting the enquiry of the CBI during the course of the investigation by asking the CBI to provide, in effect, statements or records or case diaries. THE question of supplying such records, during investigation to the person who is being inquired upon does not arise. This will virtually amount to providing case diaries to the contesting respondents which this Court has no intention of doing. Until the final report is filed or a charge-sheet, as the case may be, access to the statements or records collected by the CBI during the course of investigation cannot be had by those who are being enquired into. THE contention of Counsel that the reports of the CBI are not worth a paper which have been written appears to have been made with much zeal than is necessary. THE Court ought not to take notice of the sub mission. In so far as contentions on the relief and the technicality that a certiorari has not been sought, the submission itself under estimates the scope of a prerogative writ jurisdiction to mould the relief if an injustice appears to have been done. THE issue is not so much whether the petitioners have declared their income in the writ petition, but the question is whether the contesting respondents have truthfully disclosed essential facts in their applications on which basis they were to be considered of the grant of a franchise or distributorship of retail business for sell ing the products of the Oil Corporations, all public sector undertakings. THE repeated contention of the said respon dents that there has been a misunderstanding between the gross and the net income appears to be an after thought as what was required as a preclude and a pre-condition in making the applica tions was the income on gross receipts not the net of it. 12. In so far as reference to a decision in the matter of Ajay Pratap Singh v. Chair man, Oil Selection Board Lucknow, is con cerned, the argument appears to be misplaced. Learned Counsel submitted that in that matter an enquiry had been directed for being conducted by the Oil Corporation, concerned. What was not placed before the Court and escaped the attention of Counsel is paragraph 8 of the judgment which clearly records that in that particular case an investigation had been ordered and that also a criminal investiga tion and the Station Officer filed a final report. Learned Counsel should have been careful in citing this case. Arguments ought to be based on the whole of the judgment on which reliance is placed not a part of it. 13. THE petitioners in their rejoinder arguments have pleaded that if the Court comes to the conclusion that a prima facie case has been made out, then, they ought to be considered for running the franchise. 14. THE Court has gone through the CBI reports, all three of them. THE relief which the petitioners seek may be a con tradiction in terms. When there is a critical comment after a fact finding inquiry on the manner in which the applications were processed (a) by the public sector under takings, concerned, in the present cases, the Indian Oil Corporation and Bharat Petroleum Corporation, (b) by the Oil Selection Board and (c) on the contesting respondents, the present franchise holders, the entire selection process is vitiated. It is abundantly clear on record that each of the contesting respondents were trying to show their income in such a way so as to suppress it below the gross amount of Rs. 50,000. 00 and by carefully avoiding reference to other incomes, as if there was not any. In all these cases, the respondents holding the franchise had a gross income of more than Rs. 50,000. 00. either their father or spouses were earn ing along with them and they had other incomes which all put together left them with gross incomes not below but above Rs. 50,000. 00. This was in the case of the Chunar Distributorship (Writ Petition No. 23899 of 1994, Respondent No. 4 ). In the case of Bareilly (Writ Petition No. 24953 of 1994, respondent No. 6 and in Writ Petition No. 2653 of 1995, respon dent No. 7) a leading surgeon pays a salary bill of Rs. 95,000. 00 to his staff and declares this as a deductible expenditure in his tax returns and yet claims that his gross income is below Rs. 50,000. 00. This respondent claims a depreciation of more than Rs. 79,000. 00 on his medical equip ment and pays interest on borrowings from financial institutions and claims this payment as a deductible expenditure. THE gross deductible expenditure is more than the basic criteria of a gross income not being more than Rs. 50,000. 00. THE Court is not concerned with the losses in busi ness, but the gross receipts. 15. THEn there is the case of Saharan pur (Writ Petition No. 28574, respondent No. 4), in which the contesting respondent himself is a business tycoon. He earns an income which exceeds one lakh rupees. He owns properties and rental income. He is a partner with 20% share in a business known as Messrs. Jindal Yarns. His wife is also an income tax payer. THE income of this contesting respondent is more than what has been required for eligibility. 16. THEse are the facts on record as have been collected by the CBI, as this Court, at present, is not concerned on who has suppressed how and with what degree. Whether the criminal cases against them for material suppression of facts, when the law obliged them to make a correct dis closure, fail or succeed, is not the Court's concern. But today, one thing is clear that on the state of nation where unemploy ment is rampant, a State run franchise requires very strict standards in selecting the suitors. Running a business of goods manufactured by public sector undertak ings will need a careful selection of retail dealers as a dedicated programme to generate self-employment among the un employed or mitigate the economic hardship factor amongst the educated under-employed. THE affluent are not meant to apply; the question of consider ing them does not arise. THE respondents who received the franchises in the cases before the Court and the CBI inquired on their financial status, were disqualified by their prosperity. What they arranged to receive was an unjust largesses. 17. THE cases which will be processed by the CBI, when a charge-sheet is filed, each of these respondents, concerned, will have a right to file their defence. THE Court, thus, can make no comment on the further course of the investigation. But on what the petitioners petitioned to the Court and the consequential inquiry with what has been reported upon by the CBI the petitions are not without cause. In one case (Writ Petition 28574 of 1994), from Saharanpur a complaint had been made by a member of the public, to the Hon'ble Minister for Petroleum, Union of India, New Delhi. THE submission made before the Court by learned Counsel for the Bharat Petroleum Corporation was only a fortification on what has been offered in the counter-affidavit. It was, to the effect, that it was sent to the Oil Selection Board. THE question arises why could not the Ministry of Petroleum and/or the Oil Cor poration, concerned, look into the merits of the complaint when they had all the opportunity to do so. 18. THE Court is of the opinion that having regard to the arguments heard and the pleadings perused including all the reports of the Central Bureau of Investiga tion, no authority could with confidence grant the contracts on the franchises as has been done in the present cases. None of the respondents met with the basic criteria. THE Court is satisfied that each of the respondents need to be unsuited as they have received misplaced benefaction and consequential ill begotten gains. THE allotments made in favour of Manish Kumar Agarwal (respondent No. 4 in Writ Petition No. 28899 of 1994), Dr. Ajay Kumar Agarwal (respondent No. 6 in Writ Petition No. 24953 of 1994 and respondent No. 7 in Writ Petition No. 2653 of 1995) and Sunil Kumar Khemka (respondent No. 3 in Writ Petition No. 28574 of 1995) are cancelled forthwith and the respon dent public sector undertakings in the respective cases are directed to ensure compliance of this order with immediate effect. 19. THE petitions are allowed with costs. Petition allowed. .;