- (1.) THE petitioner in the instant writ petition has challenged the withdrawal of Letter of Intent issued to her by the Indian Oil Corporation (for short the IOC) for awarding Retail Outlet Dealership at location Bhilwara under marketing plan 96-98 Category-Open.
(2.) PURSUANT to the advertisement dated August 19, 2000 the petitioner made application that was found to be in accordance with the eligibility criteria formulated by the IOC and after complete scrutiny, verification and satisfaction, the Letter of Intent dated March 28, 2001 was issued by the IOC on the orders of the Dealers Selection Board (for short the DSB ). Smt. Sumitra Nanawati (respondents No. 3) who was at No. 3 in the merit list served a notice dated April 16, 2001 for demand of justice on the IOC and DSB. Treating the notice as complaint the DSB directed the IOC to conduct inquiry as per para 3. 15 of the guide lines. After receiving enquiry report the DSB asked the petitioner to appear before it. Shri C. L. Jhanwar appeared before the DSB on behalf of the petitioner and made submissions. On hearing arguments the DSB passed the following orders on August 18, 2001: " We have today heard arguments of the learned counsel for both the parties and gave them ample opportunity to produce documents and material in support of their contentions. We have carefully considered the arguments, perused the case law as also documents, material produced by both the parties. We are of the opinion that Smt. Tulsi Devi Somani who was placed at No. 1 in the merit list was not eligible and qualified as her annual income exceeded Rs. 2 lacs in view of the fact that she has not included her capital gains earned during the relevant financial year, although shown in her income tax return. Hence her selection was erroneous and is hereby cancelled. The panel stands revised and Smt. Sunita Chawla becomes first in the order of merit and Mst. Sumitra becomes No. 2 in the order of merit. " The IOC vide letter dated August 27, 2001 intimated the petitioner that on the basis of advise of DSB, the Letter of Intent dated March, 28, 2001 issued to the petitioner stood withdrawn. The petitioner through her counsel served a notice for demand of justice on the IOC and DSB and filed the instant writ petition seeking the relief indicated herein above. The respondents 1,2 and 3 submitted separate replies to the writ petition. In the reply to the writ petition respondent No. 1 averred that the petitioner has been held ineligible because her income was found to exceed the ceiling of Rs. 2 lacs. The petitioner mis-represented and concealed the correct annual income for the relevant financial year 1999-2000, which was evident from the income tax return submitted by the respondent No. 3. It was further averred that the respondent No. 1 rightly withdrew the Letter of Intent dated March 28, 2001 in exercise of the its powers under Clause 3. 15 of the Guidelines as the petitioner had concealed true and correct income for the relevant financial year from the IOC and it was found that her income for the relevant financial year was more than Rs. 2 lacs. The respondent No. 2 reiterated the facts given in the reply to the writ petition submitted that the second empanelled candidate Mrs. Sunita Chawla became the next incumbent for the retail out let but Mrs. Sunita Chawla opted for LPG Distributorship at Mandal and therefore Letter of Intent for Retail Outlet at Bhilwara was issued on October 23, 2001 to Smt. Sumitra Nanawati, the third empanelled candidate.
(3.) THE respondent No. 3 submitted in the reply that the petitioner has suppressed the income and made incorrect declaration and as the application submitted by the petitioner was based on false declaration, it was liable to be rejected or the dealership was to be cancelled at any point of time when the said fact was revealed. It was further averred that in the undertaking given by the candidate it was provided that if any candidate made a false declaration then his dealership could be cancelled at any time. THE income tax return of the petitioner was annexed with the reply. The petitioner submitted rejoinder to the replies denying the allegation of false declaration levelled against her. The petitioner averred in the rejoinder that any gain or transfer of a capital asset or personal property cannot be termed as `income' for the purpose of the said criteria and excluding the capital gain, the gross annual income for the relevant year was as under: 1. Smt. Tulsi Devi Somani (petitioner) Rs. 81,051/- 2. Shri Ashok Somani (husband) Rs. 98,256/- Total Rs. 1,79,307/- In the rejoinder it has been averred that after issuance of notice in the writ petition, the respondent No. 1 communicated Letter of Intent to respondent No. 3 Smt. Sumitra Nanawati on October 23, 2001, which is unreasonable and unjust. The fact situation emerges from the pleadings of the parties is as under- (i) The petitioner was placed at No. 1 in the merit list and Letter of Intent was issued to her. (ii) Respondent Smt. Sumitra Nanawti who was at No. 3 in the merit list, made a complaint that annual income of the petitioner exceeded Rs. 2 lacs in view of the fact that she had not included her capital gains earned during the relevant financial year. (iii) The DSB cancelled the selection of the petitioner only on the ground that after including her capital gains her income exceeded Rs. 2 lacs. (iv) The panel stood revised. After striking down the name of the petitioner from the merit list, Smt. Sunita Chawla was placed at No. 1 and respondent Smt. Sumitra at No. 2. (v) Smt. Sunita Chawla opted for LPG Distributorship at Mandal. (vi) During the pendency of writ petition i. e. on October 23, 2001 IOC issued Letter of Intent for Retail outlet at Bhilwara (which was earlier issued to the petitioner) to respondent Smt. Sumitra Nanawati. ;