Vs. Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd. & Ors  Insc 27 (15 January 2004)
V. Patil & D.M. Dharmadhikari. Shivaraj V. Patil J.
order dated 17.3.1997 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court affirming
the order dated 10.2.1997 passed by a Single Judge of the High Court in C.O.
No. 17843 (W) of 1996 is under challenge in this appeal.
Oil Corporation (for short `the Corporation') invited applications for
appointment of a dealer relating to a retail outlet, on 22nd June, 1987. It was open to all but preference
was to be given to the unemployed youth. The appellant was given the dealership
as an unemployed youth. The appellant was engaged as a Trainee Professional
Sales Representative with M/s. Denis Chem Lab Limited from 23.2.1987 to
3.4.1989. He wrote `NIL' against the relevant column relating to employment.
The respondent No. 5 who had also applied for dealership filed objections
before the Oil Selection Board stating that the appellant was an employee and
as such he was not entitled to the benefit of preferential treatment. The Oil
Selection Board prepared a panel of three candidates consisting of the
appellant, respondent No. 5 and one another placing the appellant at Sr. No. 1
and the respondent No. 5 at Sr. No. 2. The respondent No. 5 filed writ
application No. 19758(W) of 1995 challenging the selection of the appellant. An
order was passed on 12.12.1995 in that writ petition directing the authorities
of the Corporation to make a fresh consideration. Pursuant to the same, the
Deputy General Manager of the Corporation, keeping in mind the finding of the
Oil Selection Board, rejected the objection raised by respondent No. 5. The
respondent No. 5 filed second Writ Application No.3262 of 1996.
order dated 27.2.1996, in the said writ application direction was given to
consider a certificate produced by the respondent no. 5 showing that the
appellant was employed with M/s. Denis Chem Lab Limited. The relevant portion
of the said order dated 27.2.1996 reads:
that as it may, the spirit of the order passed by me is quite clear and only on
the ground that the said certificate had not been mentioned in my order, the
authorities ought not to have brushed aside the same while considering the
matter. Accordingly, I dispose of this writ application with a direction upon
the said officer and/or any other officer to be appointed by the Indian Oil
Corporation and its authorities to reconsider the matter in the light of the
certificate dated 30th
October, 1995 and
thereafter to pass final orders after giving the parties hearing. It is made
clear that running of the retail outlet shall abide by the result of the
decision of the said authorities." Following the said order, the
Corporation considered the matter afresh and passed the order dated 11.10.1996 cancelling
the dealership given to the appellant. The appellant filed the Writ Petition C.O.No.
17843 (W) of 1996 challenging the validity and correctness of the
aforementioned order dated 11.10.1996 passed by the Corporation contending that
the said order was perverse as the previous decision of the Corporation as well
as the decision of the Oil Selection Board had not been considered; in any
event, the respondent No. 5 could not have been appointed as a retail outlet
dealer in his place; the appellant did not suppress any fact and even otherwise
the alleged suppression could not have made any difference to the decision of
the Oil Selection Board as he as a trainee was not an employee. A learned
Single Judge, by the order dated 10.2.1997 after considering the rival
contentions, concluded that the panel prepared by the Oil Selection Board was
no more valid and in the result while upholding the cancellation of the
dealership of the appellant, set aside the dealership given to the respondent No.
5. Further the Corporation was directed to take appropriate action in the
matter as permissible in law. Aggrieved by this order of the learned Single
Judge, the appellant, the respondent No. 5 and the Corporation filed three
appeals being Appeal Nos. 445, 508 and 511 of 1997 before the Division Bench of
the High Court. The Division Bench of the High Court, by a detailed and
considered order dated 17.3.1997 did not find any good reason to interfere with
the judgment of the learned Single Judge and dismissed all the three appeals.
The appellant who was appellant in M.A.T. 445 of 1997 before Division Bench of
the High Court is in appeal before this Court in this appeal.
Senior Counsel for the appellant urged that the cancellation of dealership
awarded to the appellant was mechanically cancelled by the Corporation merely
on the basis of the report of enquiry made by its officer without application
of mind; assuming that there was any irregularity in considering the
application of the appellant for grant of dealership, it could not be said to
be void. According to him, the appellant during the relevant period was working
as a trainee and not as an employee and as such the termination of his
dealership on the ground that he gave false information was not at all
justified; the Corporation has not shown how cancellation of dealership of the
appellant was justified particularly when the appellant had secured more marks
in the interview conducted by the Board.
learned counsel for the Corporation made submissions supporting the impugned
leaned counsel for the respondent no. 5 made submissions supporting the
cancellation of dealership of the appellant and added that the reasons recorded
by the learned Single Judge as well as the Division Bench of the High Court in
upholding the cancellation and dealership of the appellant were fully
have examined and considered the rival contentions urged on behalf of the
parties having due regard to the material placed on record. The leaned Single
Judge not only upheld the cancellation of the dealership given to the appellant
but also set aside the dealership given to the respondent no. 5.
no. 5 came up to this Court in S.L.P.(C) No. 8902/97 questioning the validity
of the impugned judgment to the extent he was aggrieved by the dismissal of his
appeal MAT No. 508 of 1997. The SLP was dismissed by this Court on 30.4.1997.
Before us, the only appeal filed by the appellant is for consideration. In this
view, we are not called upon to examine the correctness of the cancellation of
dealership given to the respondent no. 5 after the termination of the
dealership given to the appellant earlier. In other words, we have to focus our
attention and consider only the question as to whether the order of termination
of the dealership given to the appellant is right in law and justified.
facts that are not in dispute are that the Corporation invited application for
appointment of a dealer in respect of one of its retail petrol pump on
22.6.1987. In response to the same, several applications were received.
Eligible candidates were interviewed. Based on the selection made by the Oil
Selection Board, the Corporation issued a letter of intent in favour of the
appellant on 9.8.1995.
No. 5 made complaint alleging that the appellant did not fulfill the
Oil Selection Board found allegations of the respondent No. 5 incorrect and
advised the Corporation not to take notice of his complaint. The respondent no.
5 filed Writ Petition No. 17958 of 1995 challenging the recommendation made in favour
of the appellant for appointment as a dealer in respect of retail outlet in the
town of Durgapur. The writ petition was disposed of
on 12.12.1995 directing the Corporation to consider and dispose of the
objection raised by the respondent No. 5 with regard to the grant of dealership
to the appellant on the ground indicated not only in his representation dated 12th September, 1995 but also on the grounds raised in
the Writ Petition.
nominated one of its Officers Mr. B.D. Ghosh to consider the matter pursuant to
the order made in the aforementioned writ petition. Before the said officer,
the respondent No. 5 urged that the appellant was employed with M/s. Denis Chem
Lab Limited. Mr. Ghosh did not decide this new contention understanding that
the direction given in the writ petition was restricted only to the
representation dated 12th September, 1995 given by the respondent No. 5 and
rejected the objections raised by the respondent No. 5 holding that the
selection of the appellant was not bad in law.
on 23rd January, 1996, the Corporation appointed the
appellant as the dealer for the retail outlet. Respondent No. 5 filed the
second Writ Petition No. 3262 of 1996 challenging the order appointing the
appellant as the dealer. The said writ petition was disposed of by a learned
Single Judge on 27.2.1996 directing the Corporation to reconsider the matter in
the light of the Certificate dated 30th October, 1995 issued by M/s. Denis Chem Lab
Limited on which reliance was placed by the respondent no. 5. In the said
certificate, it was stated that appellant had worked with M/s. Denis Chem Lab
Limited as a Trainee Sales Professional Representative from 23.2.1987 to
3.4.1989 at Gujarat.
Corporation this time nominated one Mr. N.K. Gupta, the Chief Consumer Manager
of the Corporation. Mr. Gupta instructed his office to send a letter to M/s.
Denis Chem Lab Limited to enquire about the employment of the appellant. M/s.
Denis Chem Lab Limited by their reply dated 21.5.1996 confirmed that the
appellant had been working in their organization from 23.2.1987 as a Trainee
Sales Professional Representative, that his services were confirmed, his
provident fund was deducted from the period 1.3.1988 and thereafter on
17.2.1989 he tendered his resignation, which was accepted. On these facts, Mr.
Gupta concluded that on the date the appellant applied for the dealership, he
was employed at least as a trainee. He also referred to the application of the
appellant and particularly column No. 9 relating to the status of present
occupation in which it was shown as `Nil'. Hence, Mr. Gupta held that the
appellant was disqualified and the Corporation should take suitable action
accordingly. On 11.10.1996, the Corporation terminated the dealership of the
appellant pursuant to the report of Mr. Gupta. The appellant challenged the
order of termination of his dealership by filing Writ Petition No. 17843 of
1996, which was disposed of by the learned Single Judge upholding the
termination of dealership of the appellant. The same was affirmed by the
impugned order by the Division Bench of the High Court in the appeal.
appellant gave an affidavit for securing the dealership. In paragraph 10 of the
affidavit, which is reproduced in the impugned order, it is clearly stated that
if any information given by the appellant in any application or in any document
submitted by him in support of his application for the award of dealership is
found to be untrue or incorrect or false, the Corporation would be within its
rights to withdraw the letter of intent, terminate the dealership/
distributorship (if already awarded) and that he would have no claim whatsoever
against Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. for such withdrawal/termination. Further
paragraph 56 of the Memorandum of Agreement, as indicated in the impugned
order, gave liberty to the Corporation to terminate the agreement on finding
that any information given by the dealer in his application for appointment was
found to be untrue or incorrect in any material respect.
offer of appointment dated 8.2.1987 given by M/s. Denis Chem Lab Limited to the
Biswadeep Roy Chowdhury CD/64/2, V.K. Nagar Durgapur 713 210 (W.B.) Dear Mr. Chowdhury,
Sub: Appointment Offer We refer to your application for the job of Professional
Sales Representative and subsequent interview with us.
is pleased to inform you that you have been selected for a post. You shall be
paid Rs.650/- per month as starting stipend. Stipend shall be increased to Rs.
700/- at the end of six months from the date of joining and Rs. 750/- on
completion of one year service.
this, you shall be paid Rs. 100/- per month as vehicle maintenance allowance if
you are using a two wheeler scooter or motor cycle for your daily field work at
Head Quarter. Proof of ownership of vehicle for regular use has to be submitted
to this office for our record. Besides this, you shall be paid following
working allowance:- Head Quarter per working day : Rs.22/- Ex-town / transit
per day : Rs.28/- Outstation : Rs.40/- You shall be entitled for bus fair for
travel within 50 K.M. from the H.Q. For longer distance, you shall be allowed
1st Class Railway Fare. You are required to join training class at Ahmedabad
from 23rd February,
1987 for the period of
three weeks. You are required to reach Ahmedabad on 22.2.1987. Your stay
arrangements have been fixed at Gandhi Ashram Guest House, Opp. Gandhi Ashram, Ashram Road, Sabarmati, Ahmedabad.
Headquarter of posting shall be decided at the end of training. Your regular
appointment letter shall be issued on successful completion of training. Please
sign duplicate copy of this letter in token of your acceptance and return for
for sales training class shall be suite or shirt with necktie and trousers.
confirm having sent a telegram to you reading as under:- YOUR APPOINTMENT OFFER
POSTED (.) CONFIRMED TELEGRAPHICALLY ACCEPTANCE AND JOINING FOR TRAINING
STRARTING 23RD FEBRUARY.
case we do not receive your confirmation by 14th February, we shall extend our
offer to next candidate on your selection list.
you, Yours faithfully, For DENIS CHEM LAB LTD." The reply dated 21.5.1996
given by M/s. Denis Chem Lab Limited to the letter dated 4.4.1996 written by
the Corporation confirms that the appellant was working in their organization
from 23.2.1987. He was working as a Trainee Sales Profession Representative;
his services were confirmed and his provident fund number was GJ/15771/137,
certain amount was also collected towards provident fund and he resigned from
services on 17.2.1989, which was accepted on 5.4.1989. A combined reading of
the offer of appointment and the aforementioned reply of the M/s. Denis Chem
Lab Limited clearly shows that the appellant was an employee on the relevant
date. Mere use of word trainee cannot be taken to say that he was not an
employee particularly so when his services were confirmed later. In the
application filed by the appellant for securing dealership, as against column No.
8(c) whether he was temporarily employed, he has filled as `No'. In column No.
9, as against the present occupation, he has shown as `Nil'. These statements
made by the appellant in column No. 8(c) and column No. 9 amount to suppression
of material fact. This apart, nothing prevented the appellant from mentioning
in column no. 9 of the application as against the status of employment at least
as a trainee. But on the other hand, in column 9 he has shown the status of
occupation as `Nil'. The contention advanced on behalf of the appellant that
the status of occupation as shown was bona fide cannot be accepted. In view of para
10 of the affidavit filed by him coupled with the para 56 of the Memorandum,
the Corporation was well within its right to terminate the dealership of the
appellant. There is no substance in the argument advanced on behalf of the
appellant that the Corporation passed the order of termination of the
dealership of the appellant mechanically and without application of mind. On
the facts found and in view of the findings recorded by Mr. Gupta, it cannot be
said that the order passed by the Corporation terminating the dealership of the
appellant was mechanical or without application of mind.
Court in Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan & Ors. vs. Ram Ratan Yadav [(2003) 3
SCC 437] while dealing with the effect of suppression of material information
took a view that the purpose of seeking information cannot be defeated which
has bearing on the selection. Added to this, if only the appellant had given
correct information about status of his occupation as on the relevant date as
rightly held by the learned Single Judge which view was affirmed by the
Division Bench of the High Court, possibly the position would have been different.
At any rate, the appellant is bound by his own affidavit and the Memorandum of
Agreement mentioned above.
having regard to all aspects, in our view, the impugned judgment does not call
for any interference. Hence, the appeal is dismissed. No costs.