IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H. T. NARENDRA PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO.37361 OF 2013 (GM-RES) Between:
Mr.Thimmanna, S/o Late Dasanabhovi, Aged about 42 years, Permanent Resident of Premises, No.87, “Ashirwad” 3rd Cross Annapoorneshwari Layout Jhanabharathi Post Bengaluru – 560 056. …Petitioner (By Sri. A.S.Ponnanna, Senior Advocate for Sri.R.Rangaswamy, Advocate) And:
1. M/s. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. (A Government of India Enterprise) With its Registered Office in Bharat Bhavan, 4 & 6 Cummbhoy Road, Ballard Estate, PB No.688, Mumbai – 400 001.
Represented by its Territory Manager.
2. The Territory Manager (LPG), Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd.
Mangalore Territory Office & LPG Bottling Plant, Baikampady Industrial Estate, Mangalore – 575 011.
3. Mrs. Shashi Rekha, W/o Madhu B.P. Aged about 24 years, Permanent Resident of Hoovinalli Kaval, Belur Road, Kuppalli Post, Hassan District – 573 201.
4. Kum.Ambika Bai T.H. D/o Hanuma Naik, Residing at, Tagachagappe, Bachenahatti Post, Kasaba Hobli, Magadi Taluk, Ramanagar District. … Respondents (By Sri Aruna Shyam, Advocate for R1 and R2, Sri.Sri.K.G.Sadashivaiah, Advocate for R.3 and Sri.Sachin B.S, Advocate for R.4) This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the order dated 07.08.2013 vide Annexure-F issued by respondent No.2 and etc.
This Writ Petition coming on for Orders this day, the Court made the following:
O R D E R This Writ Petition is directed against the order dated 17.08.2013 passed by the 2nd respondent as per Annexure-F rejecting the application of the petitioner filed for LPG Distributorship, Arsikere Taluk, Hassan District.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the 1st respondent has called applications by public notice published in “Times of India” on 05.09.2012 inviting the applications for selection of LPG Distributors under various categories at different locations in the State of Karnataka as specified in the Public Notice. The 1st respondent notified that LPG Distributorship was open for a location at Arsikere, Hassan District in the Rural segment and such LPG Distributorship was reserved for Schedule Caste Category. Pursuant to that notification, the petitioner has filed an application along with necessary documents. One of the conditions under the Notification as per clause–7.1 (v) is that the applicant should have a minimum total amount of Rs.2.5 lakhs as on the date of the application for Urban-Rural and Rural Markets respectively.
3. The petitioner has submitted an application on 03.10.2012. The specific case of the petitioner is that as on the date of filing of the application, on 03.10.2012 the petitioner has minimum total amount of Rs.2.5 lakhs in his account. Subsequently, the respondents have conducted a field verification and they have filed a report that as on 03.10.2012 there was no balance of Rs.2.5 lakhs in the petitioner’s account. On the basis of that report, on 07.08.2013 (Annexure-F) the respondent No.2 has rejected the application of the petitioner on the ground that as on the date of the filing of the application i.e., 03.10.2012, minimum balance of Rs.2.5 lakhs was not there in the account of the petitioner. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has filed this writ petition.
4. Sri.A.S.Ponnanna, learned senior counsel for Sri.R.Rangaswamy appearing for petitioner submits that as on the date of filing of the application i.e., 03.12.2012, the petitioner has minimum balance in the bank account as per the statement issued by the Bank produced as Annexure-C. He further contended that as per the notification issued by the 1st respondent, it is specifically stated in clause 7.1(v) as hereunder;
“v. Have minimum total amount of ` 15 lakhs for Urban Markets and ` 10 lakhs for Urban–Rural & Rural Markets respectively as on the date of application. This amount is to be arrived at by adding amount in Savings Bank accounts in Schedule Bank/ Post Office, free and un-encumbered Fixed Deposits in Scheduled Banks, Post Office, Listed Companies/Government Organisation/Public Sector Undertaking of State and Central Government, Kisan Vikas Patra, NSC, Bonds, Shares of Listed Companies, Listed Mutual Funds, ULIP, PPF, Surrender Value of Life Insurance policies in the name of Applicant or family members of the ‘Family Unit’ of the Applicant as defined above. In case of locations reserved under ‘SC/ST’ category, minimum total amount as on the date of application should be ` 5 lakhs for Urban Markets and ` 2.5 lakhs for Urban-Rural & Rural Markets respectively.”
He submits that as per the Clause 7.1(v) he has a surrender value of LIC policy of the family members and he further submits that he has satisfied all the conditions mentioned in the notification. In spite of that, without giving any notice, unilaterally the respondent No.2 has rejected the petitioner’s application. He further submits that clause 11.2 in the notification, it is very specifically mentioned that if there is variance with the original documents and that information which affects the eligibility of the candidate, then a letter would be sent by Registered Post AD/Speed Post pointing out the discrepancy. The authority has to send a letter to the petitioner to get clarification. Without complying this, they have issued impugned order at Annexure-F and the same is unsustainable. Hence, he sought for allowing the writ petition.
5. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that as per the Bank Statement which is Annexure-R.1, it is very clear that as on the date i.e., 03.10.2012 the minimum balance of Rs.2.5 lakhs was not there in the petitioner’s account. On 03.12.2012, he has withdrawn that amount in the afternoon. Therefore, he has not complied the conditions mentioned in the Circlar. He further contended that clause-22 of the Circular reads as under;
“22. False Information If any statement made in the application or in the documents enclosed therewith or subsequently submitted in pursuance of the application by the candidate at any stage is found to have been suppressed/ misrepresented /incorrect or false affecting eligibility, then the application is liable to be rejected without assigning any reason and in case the applicant has been appointed as a distributor, the distributorship is liable to be terminated. In such cases the candidate/distributor shall have no claim whatsoever against the respective Oil Company.”
There is a power to reject his application. Therefore, he sought for dismissal of the writ petition.
6. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
7. It is not in dispute pursuant to that Notification issued by the 1st respondent dated 05.09.2012, the petitioner has filed application. Along with the application, he has furnished all the relevant documents. One of the conditions as per that Notification, is that the applicant should have minimum total amount as on the date of the application at Rs.2.5 lakhs in the reserved category of SC/ST for a rural market. As on the date, as per Annexure-C, the petitioner has deposited Rs.2.5 lakhs in the petitioner’s account. But, the documents which are produced by the respondents as per Annexure-R.1, bank statement, as on 03.10.2012, the balance was shown as only Rs.370/-. Therefore, there is a discrepancy in the document produced by the parties. But the authorities have not issued any notice to the petitioner under Clause 11.2 of Circular pointing out the discrepancy.
The clause 7.1(v) of Circular reads as under:
“v. Have minimum total amount of ` 15 lakhs for Urban Markets and ` 10 lakhs for Urban–Rural & Rural Markets respectively as on the date of application. This amount is to be arrived at by adding amount in Savings Bank accounts in Schedule Bank/ Post Office, free and un-encumbered Fixed Deposits in Scheduled Banks, Post Office, Listed Companies/Government Organisation/Public Sector Undertaking of State and Central Government, Kisan Vikas Patra, NSC, Bonds, Shares of Listed Companies, Listed Mutual Funds, ULIP, PPF, Surrender Value of Life Insurance policies in the name of Applicant or family members of the ‘Family Unit’ of the Applicant as defined above. In case of locations reserved under ‘SC/ST’ category, minimum total amount as on the date of application should be ` 5 lakhs for Urban Markets and ` 2.5 lakhs for Urban-Rural & Rural Markets respectively.”
The contention of the petitioner that as per clause - 7.1(v), he has surrender value of Life Insurance Policies of family members at more than Rs.5,00,000/-, but he has not produced such documents along with the application. But only ground on which the petitioner’s application has been rejected by Annexure-F is that the petitioner has not maintained the minimum balance of Rs.2.5 lakhs as per the report of Field Verification of Credentials (FVC).
8. But, the provision under the Circular in clause 11.2 reads as follows:
“11. Field Verification of Credentials (FVC) 11.1. Verification of the information given in the application by the applicant with the original documents and with the issuing authorities wherever required is called Field Verification of Credentials (FVC).
11.2. Field verification will be carried out for the selected candidate as per laid down procedure. If in the FVC, the information given in the application by the applicant is found to be correct. Letter of Intent (LOI) will be issued with the approval of competent authority.
If in the FVC it is found that information given in the application is at variance with the original documents and that information affects the eligibility of the candidate, then a letter would be sent by Registered Post AD/Speed Post pointing out the discrepancy.”
This clause is very clear that if there is any variation in the application with the original document, the authority has to give an opportunity to the petitioner to explain that variation in the document. Without giving any opportunity to the petitioner, the respondent No.2 has passed the impugned order at Annexure-F on the basis of FVC report. Hence, the same is unsustainable. In view of the above discussion Annexure-F shall be construed as a show-cause notice issued by respondent No.2 to the petitioner.
9. The petitioner is permitted to give a reply along with other necessary documents and submit the same to respondent No.2, within two weeks from today.
The respondent No.2 is directed to consider the reply submitted by the petitioner along with documents and pass appropriate order in accordance with law within two weeks thereafter, With the above said observations, the Writ Petition is disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE NBM