M.M. Kumar, J. - (1.) THE instant petition is directed against order dated 12.7.2007 (P -5), passed by the respondent Corporation withdrawing the letter of intent issued to the petitioner on 25.9.2006 (P -4), for retail outlet dealership at village Tumasara, District Faridabad, under Scheduled Caste category. The basic reason for withdrawing the letter of intent is that the respondent Corporation had received a complaint dated 3.10.2006 from Shri Vinit Paruthi, M/s Parutlii Road Line Pvt. Ltd., alleging that the petitioner had submitted a false affidavit for tie up volume to purchase High Speed Diesel. The affidavit of Shri Vinit Paruthi (P -6), was found to be fabricated and false. Accordingly, selection of the petitioner for allotment of retail outlet dealership was cancelled and letter of intent was withdrawn.
(2.) MR . R.M. Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioner has referred to the averments made in para 7 of the writ petition asserting that the petitioner has never been associated with the inquiry held by the respondent in which if has been concluded that the petitioner has filed a false and fabricated affidavit of Shri Vinit Paruthi for tie up volume from M/s Paruthi Road Line Pvt. Ltd. According to the learned Counsel, the principles of natural justice would require that the petitioner before being subjected to any adverse action should have been granted an opportunity of hearing after issuance of a show cause notice. Learned Counsel has maintained that non -compliance of principles of natural justice before passing the impugned order, which has resulted into civil consequences, would amount to violation of Article 14 of the Constitution.
(3.) MR . J.S. Toor, learned Counsel for the respondent Corporation, however, has submitted that in preliminary objection No. 1 a categorical stand has been taken that Shri Vinit Paruthi has himself come forward with a complaint and he had stated that the petitioner has fabricated his affidavit. He filed a complaint on 3.10.2006. Learned Counsel has further pointed out that in the letter of intent, dated 25.9.2006 (P -4), it has been categorically mentioned that it is not to be construed as a 'firm offer' of dealership and that the proposal made was to stand automatically withdrawn and cancelled if it was found that the petitioner has suppressed or misrepresented any material facts in his application.;