- (1.) The petitioner is seeking quashing of the order dated 28.02.2012 (Anexure P-1), passed by the Chief Area Manager, Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.-respondent No.2, whereby letter of intent dated 20.09.2011 (Annexure P-5) issued in favour of the petitioner, has been withdrawn/cancelled.
(2.) Pursuant to the an advertisement issued by the Indian Oil Corporation, the petitioner made an application dated 12.01.2008 (Annexure P-2 Collectively) for allotment of LPG distributorship in Gurdaspur (Open) at serial No. 24. The interview was held from 21.12.2009 to 23.12.2009. The constituted selection committee, on the basis of clause 14 of the brochure, evaluated the petitioner and he was placed in merit panel at serial No.2 with 96.5 marks (Annexure P-4). Clause 14 of the brochure (Annexure P-3) containing norms for evaluating the marks, is reproduced as under:- "14. NORMS FOR EVALUATING THE CANDIDATES The LPG distributor will be selected on the basis of evaluation of all eligible applicants on the following parameters: a) Capability to provide infrastructure 35 marks b) Capability to provide finance 35 marks c) Educational qualifications 15 marks d) Age 4 marks e) Experience 4 marks f) Business ability/acumen 5 marks g) Personality 2 marks The first candidate in the merit panel gave up his claim. Thereafter, the respondents conducted field investigation. They did not find any deficiency and cleared the name of the petitioner. On a complaint made by a candidate, shown at serial No.1, field investigation was carried out with respect to the particulars of the petitioner i.e. Bar Council registration of the petitioner on 30.01.1995, his practice as Income Tax Advocate in the year 1998 and after seeking necessary legal opinion, letter of intent dated 20.09.2011 (Annexure P-5) was issued. Thereafter, the petitioner received a letter dated 27.09.2011 (Annexure P-6), issued by respondent No.2, whereby the letter of intent was kept in abeyance in view of a complaint received from Narinder Singh Sandhu. When the respondents asked said Narinder Singh Sandhu to corroborate his complaint, he gave an affidavit dated 01.10.2011 (Annexure P-7), stating that he had not made any complaint and his name was forged by someone via email. On an enquiry made by the petitioner at his own level, he came to know that the aforesaid complaint had been fabricated by existing LPG distributors of the area in connivance with IOC officials because their business would get affected. Clauses 21, 21.1, 22.1 and 22.2 of the brochure, which pertain to the procedure for redressing the complaints, are reproduced as under:- "21. GRIEVANCE/COMPLAINT REDRESSAL SYSTEM: An applicant who has appeared for the interview ad is aggrieved by selection may send his/her complaint to the Area Office/State Office in which the interview of LPG distributorships location is located. 21.1 A representation/complaint shall be entertained only if it is received by the office concerned within a month from the date of declaration of result. XX XX XX 22. DISPOSAL OF COMPLAINT: The disposal of complaints shall be as under:- 22.1 Anonymous/pseudonymous complaints will normally not be investigated. 22.2 On receipt of a complaint a letter will be sent by the Oil company to the complainant through Registered Post, asking him to submit details of allegation with a view to prima facie substantiate the allegations along with supporting documents, if any, within 30 days. Response of the complainant will be examined by the concerned oil company and if, it is found that the complaint does not have specific and verifiable allegations, the same ill be filed..."
(3.) The petitioner made an application dated 28.09.2011 (Annexure P-8) to respondent No.2 demanding copy of the complaint made against him. Thereafter, he made a representation dated 18.02.2012 (Annexure P-9) to the respondents, giving details about his experience w.e.f. 01.04.1994 in M/s Shiraz, a partnership firm. It was stated that the said firm initially commenced on 01.04.1977 by Smt. Kanta Malhotra, mother of the petitioner, Sh. Suman Khosla and Sh. Rajiv Malhotra. In the year 1991, Sh. Suman Khosla and Sh. Rajiv Malhotra withdrew their names from the said firm and thereafter, the petitioner joined as partner in the ancestral business. In the year 1994, new partnership deed was executed between mother and son. Another partnership deed was executed in 2002 due to change in the name of the firm from M/s Shiraz Medicine Co. to M/s Shiraz with mutual consent of both the partners. Thereafter, on 08.01.2008, the said firm was dissolved. On 09.01.2008, a fresh partnership deed was executed, showing the petitioner as a 'Dormant Partner.' Sales tax record of the firm and Permanent Account Number (PAN), allotted by the income tax department, were submitted to support the contention of the petitioner. Despite the aforesaid details, the impugned order (Annexure P-1), cancelling the letter of intent, was passed.;