M.M.KUMAR, J. - (1.) HUMAN nature is complex. It leads people to display their wealth in marriages, various parties and by building huge bungalows. Then it also leads people to conceal their wealth. The occasions, of course, are different. The instant case reveals concealment of income rather than its display because occasion has been a different one. The selection of respondent No. 4 - Jagdish Lal for allotment of LPG-distributorship, is the subject matter of challenge in this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution. His selection has been challenged on the ground that his income exceeds the criteria laid down in the advertisement issued by respondents 2 and 3 - Indian Oil Corporation. The prayer made by the petitioner, who herself was a candidate for the allotment of LPG distributorship is for quashing the selection of respondent No. 4 and for allotting the distributorship to her as she has been found in the list of selected candidate at Sr. No. 2.
(2.) A LPG distributorship became available under the open category for Cheeka, District Kaithal and the same was required to be allotted to an eligible person. Accordingly, an advertisement was issued by respondent No. 2 for allotment of LPG distributorship in respect of open category on 21.8.2000 (P- 1). In the advertisement eligibility conditions were mentioned. In Sub-clause (e) at Item 2, the criteria with regard to income was gross family income of not more than Rs. 2,00,000/- in the preceding financial year 1999-2000. The closing date for submitting the application was 6.10.2000. The petitioner applied on 5.10.2000 and deposited the application form with the Area Office, Karnal of respondent No. 2. The eligibility criteria for awarding the LPG distributorship was circulated along with the application form. The petitioner was called for interview vide letter dated 10.5.2001 and she was to appear on 5.6.2001 at 10.30 a.m. She claimed to have submitted all the requisite documents as well as affidavit at the time of interview. Out of 80 candidates interviewed, the petitioner was shown at Sr. No. 2 and respondent No. 4 was placed at Sr. No. 1 in the select list. Result was declared on the notice board of respondent No. 2 and the hand written result dated 8.6.2001 has been placed on record (P-5). The allegation of the petitioner is that respondent No. 4, who has been placed at Sr. No. 1 in the select list, is in fact ineligible for allotment because his income exceeds far more than the maximum limit of Rs. 2,00,000/- as fixed by respondent No. 2. A representation in that regard was made by the petitioner to respondent No. 2 alleging that respondent No. 4 has filed wrong declaration mentioning his annual income to be less than Rs. 2,00,000/-. It has been alleged that respondent No. 4 has concealed material facts from respondent Nos. 2 and 3. The petitioner is stated to have declared his annual income as well as experience as a Science Mistress correctly and truly whereas respondent No. 4 is alleged to have no experience who has falsely claimed to be an agriculturist. In para 9 of the petition, it has been alleged that the petitioner has gross annual income of Rs. 3,55, 184.80. The break up has been given in sub-paras of para 9 and the same are summed up as under :- (a) Income of Rs. 15,658/-. There were two Cumulative Deposit Receipts (C.D.R.) amounting to Rs. 52,000/- each in the name of Smt. Laxmi Devi mother of the respondent No. 4 and in the name of Smt. Prem Kanta wife of respondent No. 4. Both were issued on 19.9.1997. The date of maturity as mentioned in the C.D.Rs is 19.12.2000. The CDRs are to bear interest at the rate of 12% per annum. Both are to be held by either of them or the survivor. Smt. Laxmi Devi mother of the respondent No. 4 had died on 17.5.1998 and thus automatically the said amount of the C.D.R.'s became the property of Smt. Prem Kanta being surviving person. This fact has been concealed by the respondent No. 4 while applying for the LPG distributorship. Rs. 15,658/- accrued as interest on the above said F.D.R.'s during the financial year 1999-2000 which is income on the F.D.R.'s and that has not been included by respondent No. 4 while mentioning his annual gross family income. (b) Income of Rs. 22,800/-. That Respondent No. 4 has account No. 3993 with the The Siwan Cooperative Credit and Service Society Ltd., Siwan. He had taken loan on 7.12.1998 of a sum of Rs. 21,500/-, which was paid by the respondent No. 4 on 14.5.1999 along with interest Rs. 1300/-. The amount of Rs. 22,800/- was returned to the Society by Respondent No. 4. This amount of Rs. 22,800/- has not been shown in the income, either in the detail of sources of funds or in the income tax return. It has also not been declared in the form filed by Respondent No. 4. (c) Income of Rs. 64,379/-. Respondent No. 4 has taken tractor loan from State Bank of India, Siwan, in his own name and in the name of Smt. Laxmi Devi his mother in the year 1997. Respondent No. 4 had paid Rs. 64,379/- during the financial year of 1999-2000. The payment of Rs. 64,379/- has not been shown in the income tax return as well as in the declaration of annual income or in detail supplied by the respondent No. 4 to the respondents. (d) Rs. 55,000/- deposited in the account No. 9135 at PNB, Siwan. Respondent No. 4 has opened one saving bank account No. 9135 in the Punjab National Bank, Siwan. The account was opened on 12.6.1999 with an amount of Rs. 200/- and on the same date the amount of Rs. 55,000/- was deposited in the above said account. And one locker was also being operated on this bank account. On the amount deposited by respondent No. 4 interest was accrued but the same has not been shown in the income of respondent No. 4. This amount has also not been shown in the income tax return. (e) Rental income to the extent of Rs. 72,240/- + Rs. 13,200/- Respondent No. 4 is getting Rs. 1,44,480/- as rent from the S.B.I., Siwan and he has half share in the premises. The income of rent comes to Rs. 72,240/- being one half. Respondent No. 4 has two shops abutting the pucca road in the S.B.I. Building and rental income from the shops is Rs. 26,400/- per anum. Respondent No. 4 is entitled to 1/2 share of the rent of two shops, which comes to Rs. 13,200/-. However, it has not been shown by respondent No. 4 in the declaration of the annual income. It has been alleged on the basis of the above said paras that gross family income of respondent No. 4 comes to more than Rs. 3,55,184.80/-. Therefore, respondent No. 4 has not been eligible for allotment to the LPG Distributorship at Cheeka as per the eligible criteria. The total income of respondent No. 4 that accrued during the financial year 1999-2000 has been summed up as under:- i) Annual Income shown in the income tax return (Rs. 1,65,305.50 + Rs. 801.30) Rs. 1,66,106.80 ii) Interest accrued on the C.D.R.'s O.B.C., Siwan as at (a) above. Rs. 15,658.00 iii) Amount returned in account No. 3993 of the Siwan Co-operative Society as at (b) above. Rs. 22,800.00 iv) Amount returned in tractor loan account at S.B.I., Siwan as at (c) above. Rs. 64,379.00 v) Interest accrued and amount due in account No. 9135 P.N.B. Siwan, as on 31.3.2000 Rs. 801.00 vi) Rent from S.B.I. Branch, Siwan as at (e) above. Rs. 72,240.00 vii) Rent of two shops as at (e) above. Rs. 13,200.00 Total Rs. 3,55,184.80 According to the petitioner the gross income depicted by respondent No. 4 is Rs. 1,66,106.80, which is absolutely false to his knowledge. She has further claimed that the petitioner is better qualified being B.Sc B.Ed. whereas respondent No. 4 is simply B.A. IInd year pass. The petitioner has experience of teaching and respondent No. 4 has no experience. The petitioner has shown funds available with her to support the LPG distributorship, which is more than Rs. 6,00,000/- whereas respondent No. 4 has depicted only Rs. 35,000/- available with him in the application form. It has also been alleged that there is mis-statement of material facts by respondent No. 4 in his application and his application was liable to be rejected on the basis of the aforementioned concealment.
(3.) RESPONDENT Nos. 2 in its written statement has accepted the broad factual position that respondent No. 4 was placed at Sr. No. 1 in the select list and the petitioner was placed at Sr. No. 2. It has further been conceded by respondent No. 2 that representation dated 12.7.2001 was made by the petitioner with regard to concealment of income and other facts. The representation is stated to have referred to the Chairman, Dealers Selection Board, Haryana (respondent No. 3) who had advised the General Manager of Delhi State Office of respondent No. 2 to conduct an enquiry into the allegations. A committee has been constituted by the General Manager consisting of two officers of the level of Chief Manager and the report of the committee was awaited. It is, however, claimed that as per the declaration of income in his application, respondent No. 4 was eligible as his income declared in the application is within the prescribed limit. His selection is claimed to be made by the Dealers Selection Board on the basis of the information furnished by him. In the preliminary objections, respondent No. 2 has asserted that this Court should not sit as a Court of appeal over the selection process and reliance in this regard has been placed on a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of D.A. Slounke v. B.S. Mahajan, AIR 1990 SC 434. It has also been asserted that the instant petition is premature as the report of the committee appointed by respondent No. 2 is awaited.;