- (1.) IN this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution the dispute raised pertains to LPG Distributorship.
(2.) AS per averments disclosed in the petition application for Distributorship of LPG were invited by respondent No. 2 - Indian Oil Corporation Limited and published advertisement Annexure-A in the daily news paper Rajasthan Patrika in its publication Annexure-1 dated October 21, 1985. The eligibility for the applicants notified were that they should be unemployed graduates (including engineering graduates) and that the income of their family should not exceed Rs. 24000/- per annum. The petitioner is an unemployed graduate and his income did not exceed Rs. 24,000/- per annum. He, therefore, submitted the application for LPG Distributorship in pursuance to the advertisement as he was duly eligible for it. The petitioner was called for interview by respondent Ho. 1-the Oil Selection Board by their letter Annexure-2 dated 14-9-1988. The petitioner appeared before respondent No. I on 1-10-1988. Thereafter respondent No. 2 issued the Letter of Intent Annexure-3 on 19-12-1988 to the petitioner. The aforesaid Letter of Intent was accepted by the petitioner and the acceptance was communicated to respondent No. 2 by a registered letter dated 27-12-1988 vide Annexure 4. AS required by the Letter of Intent Annexure-3, the petitioner proceeded to make arrangements of land, finance etc and invested huge money therein as disclosed in para 6 of the petition. However, on 26-12-1988 he received the communication Annexure-8 dated 26-12-1988 from respondent No. 2 in which he was advised not to take any action and proceed with the matter as mentioned in the Letter of Intent till a specific letter in that direction was issued to him by respondent No. 2 from its Jaipur Office. He subsequently received communication Annexure-11 dated 25-4-1989 issued by respondent No. 1. It was mentioned therein that as complaints were received against him, he should appear before respondent No. 1 on 10-4-1989. The petitioner appeared before respondent No. 1 and furnished ail the information required from him. He received the communication Annexure-12 dated July 6, 1989 from respondent No. 2. It was mentioned therein that his income and his parents' income on inquiry was found more than Rs. 24,000/- per annum. He had concealed this fact. Since the income exceeded Rs. 24,000/- per annum, he was not eligible to obtain the LPG Distributorship. The Letter of Intent Annexure-3 dated 19-12-1988 was consequently cancelled/withdrawn with immediate effect. Respondent No. 3 Shri Ram Singh also applied under the advertisement Annexure-1 for the LPG Distributorship at Jhunjhunu. Respondent No. 3 Ram Singh is working as a Junior Engineer in the Tele Communication Department of the Govt. of India at Jhunjhunu. He is thus not an unemployed engineering graduate. The information gathered by the petitioner is that LPG Distributorship is now being granted to respondent No. 3 Ram Singh even though he is not eligible for it. It is averred that the petitioner is not dependent on his parents and as such the income of his parents should not have been taken into account by respondent No. 2 in denying the LPG Distributorship to him. The reliefs prayed for are that (i) order Ann. 12 dated 6-7-1989 be quashed, (ii) LPG Distributorship at Jhunjhunu should not be allotted to any other party including respondent No. 3 and (iii) the LPG Distributorship be allotted to the petitioner. The petition was opposed tooth and nail by the respondents. The stand taken by respondent No. 3 in his reply is that he is an engineering graduate and when he applied for LPG Distributorship on 4-12-1985, he was unemployed. He was offered temporary/ad hoc as a Junior Engineer which he* joined on 9-1-1987. His appointment is purely temporary on ad hoc basis. As per requirements notified by respondent No. 2, the temporary/ad hoc employment constitutes no bar for the allotment of LPG Distributorship. In the Letter of Intent issued to him by respondent No. 2, it has been clearly mentioned that if he was already employed, he was to submit the acceptance of his resignation letter from his employer. He would submit the acceptance of his resignation letter as soon as the LPG Distributorship was allotted to him by respondent No. 2. The other defences taken by the respondents are common. They are that the father of the petitioner retired as State Marketing Manager. IFFCO Raj. on 31-3-85. He was getting Rs. 900/- per month as pension. The petitioner's mother Smt. Sumitra Devi is a sitting M. L. A. of Rajasthan Legislative Assembly. In that capacity she is getting Rs. 1,000/- per month as salary in addition to other allowances. The petitioner's father has a fixed deposit of Rs. 1,04,000/-on which he is earning interest of Rs. 850/- per month. In the statement of income annexed with the application form, he showed his income as Rs. 5000/- per annum from agriculture. An investigation was made by the officers of respondent No. 2. During that investigation the petitioner filed his affidavit on 15-11-1988. In his that affidavit he disclosed the income of his parents to be not more than 24,000/- per annum. On investigation and as mentioned in the replies, the total income of the parents of the petitioner is much more than 24,000/-per annum. Respondent No. 3 holds only temporary, ad-hoc employment and as such he is eligible to be considered for the LPG Distributorship. It has been provided in the Policy Guidelines for LPG Distributorship that those graduates who are temporarily employees are eligible for the allotment of LPG Distributor ship. They should however, resign from the post they hold and should submit the acceptance of their resignation by the employer before the allotment-is made. Respondent No. 3 who holds only a temporary/ad-hoc appointment is, therefore, eligible for the allotment of LPG Distributorship. I have heard Shri B. L. Sharma and Shri Chandra Shekhar-learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri A. Kasliwal, Shri N. K. Maloo and Shri Sajjan Singh-learned counsel for the respondents. The first contention raised by Mr. Sharma is that the petitioner was/is not dependent on his parents and as such the income of his parents should not have been taken into consideration in refusing the LPG Distributorship to him. In his affidavit dated November 1, 1985 which he appended with his application, he has clearly mentioned that his income, that of spouse and dependent children put together does not exceed Rs. 24,000/- per annum. In the affidavit, he has struck of the clause relating, income of his parents because he was not dependent on them. In para 2 9 of the Guidelines issued by respondent No. 2, it has been mentioned that in case the candidate happens to be dependent on his/ her parents, then his/her parents' income would also be taken into consideration for computing the total income. This provision applies only when the candidate happens to be dependent of his/her parents. Since the petitioner is not dependent on his parents, the aforesaid provision has been wrongly utilised in refusing the Distributorship to him. In reply, the submission made by the respondents is that the complaints were received against the petitioner for concealing his income. An investigation was thereupon made and during that investigation the petitioner filed an affidavit on 15. 11. 1988 in which he clearly mentioned that the income of his parents taken together was not more than Rs. 24000/- per annum. It shows that he was dependent on his parents. In his aforesaid affidavit, the petitioner nowhere mentioned that he was not dependent on his parents. The income of the parents on investigation was found to be 24,000/- per annum. The Distributorship was, therefore, rightly refused to the petitioner. I have taken the respective submissions into consideration. Complaints were received by respondents No. 1 and 2 against the petitioner pertaining to the concealment of his income. An investigation was made and daring that investigation, the petitioner filed his affidavit on 15. 11. 1988. In para 1 of the affidavit, he stated that his income and the income of his parents taken together was not more than Rs. 24,000/- per annum. In this affidavit he nowhere disclosed that he was not dependent on his parents. This affidavit was filed much after the petitioner filed application for Distributorship. This affidavit speaks volumes against the petitioner and has telling effect. On the basis of this affidavit dated 15. 11. 1988, it can be unhesitatingly held that the petitioner is/was dependent on his parents when he applied for the Distributorship.
(3.) THE next allied question is whether the income of the petitioner's parent is more than Rs. 24000/- per annum. Admittedly, the petitioner's mother Smt. Sumitra Singh was a M. L. A. and is now a Cabinet Minister in the Govt. of Rajasthan. Her income as a Member of the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly was Rs. 1000/- per month, His father gets a pension of Rs. 900/- per month. His father has a fixed deposit of a sum of Rs. 1,04,000/- in a bank from where he gets Rs 850/-per month as interest. Thus the total income of the petitioner's parents is Rs. 1000 +rs. 900+rs. 850 i. e. to say Rs. 2,750/- per month. This comes to Rs. 33000/- per annum. THE petitioner has disclosed his personal income as Rs. 5000/- per annum. THE income of the petitioner including that of his parents thus comes to Rs. 38,000/- per annum. He is, therefore not entitled for the allotment of the LPG Distributorship. It was next contended by Mr. Sharma that respondent No. 3 Shri Ram Singh is an engineering graduate and is employed as Junior Engineer in Tele Communication Department of the Govt. of India. Since non-petitioner No. 3 is an employed engineering graduate, he too is not eligible for the allotment of LPG Distributorship. It was on the other hand contended by the respondents that when the application was filed by respondent No. 3 for LPG Distributorship, he was an unemployed engineering graduate. Subsequently, he joined as Junior Engineer in the Tele Communication Department of the Govt. of India on 26-12-86. He joined duty on 9-1-1987. His appointment is purely temporary/ ad-hoc and his service is likely to be terminated at any time. A graduate who holds a temporary/adhoc appointment is not disqualified for the allotment of LPG Distributorship. The only requirement is that the candidate in that case will have to submit acceptance of resignation letter from his employer, prior to the issuance of Appointment Letter by respondent No. 2. Reliance was placed on Annexure-2 dated 17-7-1989 filed by respondent No. 3 and para 3. 9 of the Guidelines. The contention raised by the petitioner is devoid of merit. Para 3. 9 of the Guidelines issued by respondent No. 1 reads as under:- "3. 9. UG (including UEG ). Affidavit as per specimen at Appendix-'a'. In the case of 'ug' candi dates who are employed in jobs which are not regular/not likely to become permanent or continue, they would be considered eligible. Self-employed persons can also apply. However, on such cases the discretion of OSB will be final and binding. " ;