Magistrate's Direction for Police Inquiry Under Section 202 CrPC Is Valid; Petitioner Must Await Investigation Outcome: Bombay High Court Dismisses Advocate's Petition as Premature    |     Tribunal’s Compensation Exceeding Claimed Amount Found Just and Fair Under Motor Vehicles Act: No Deduction Errors Warrant Reduction: Gujrat High Court    |     When Two Accused Face Identical Charges, One Cannot Be Convicted While the Other is Acquitted: Supreme Court Emphasizes Principle of Parity in Acquittal    |     Supreme Court Limits Interim Protection for Financial Institutions, Modifies Order on FIRs Filed by Borrowers    |     Kerala High Court Grants Regular Bail in Methamphetamine Case After Delay in Chemical Analysis Report    |     No Sign of Recent Intercourse; No Injury Was Found On Her Body Or Private Parts: Gauhati High Court Acquits Two In Gang Rape Case    |     Failure to Disclose Relationship with Key Stakeholder Led to Setting Aside of Arbitral Award: Gujarat High Court    |     Strict Compliance with UAPA's 7-Day Timeline for Sanctions is Essential:  Supreme Court    |     PAT Teachers Entitled to Regularization from 2014, Quashes Prospective Regularization as Arbitrary: Himachal Pradesh High Court    |     Punjab and Haryana High Court Upholds Anonymity Protections for Victims in Sensitive Cases: Right to Privacy Prevails Over Right to Information    |     Certified Copy of Will Admissible Under Registration Act, 1908: Allahabad HC Dismisses Plea for Production of Original Will    |     Injuries on Non-Vital Parts Do Not Warrant Conviction for Attempt to Murder: Madhya Pradesh High Court Modifies Conviction Under Section 307 IPC to Section 326 IPC    |     Classification Based on Wikipedia Data Inadmissible; Tribunal to Reassess Using Actual Financial Records: PH High Court Orders Reconsideration of Wage Dispute    |     Mere Delay in Initiation Does Not Justify Reduction of Damages: Jharkhand High Court on Provident Fund Defaults    |     Legatee Can Continue Suit Without Probate, But Decree Contingent on Probate Approval: Orissa High Court    |     An Award that Shocks the Conscience of the Court Cannot Stand, Especially When Public Money is Involved: Calcutta HC Reduces Quantum by Half    |     Trademark Transaction Within Territoriality Principle Subject to Indian Tax Laws: Bombay High Court Dismisses Hindustan Unilever's Petition on Non-Deduction of TDS    |     Concealment of Material Facts Bars Relief under Article 226: SC Reprimands Petitioners for Lack of Bonafides    |     Without Determination of the Will's Genuineness, Partition is Impossible: Supreme Court on Liberal Approach to Pleading Amendments    |     Candidates Cannot Challenge a Selection Process After Participating Without Protest : Delhi High Court Upholds ISRO's Administrative Officer Recruitment    |     Invalid Bank Guarantee Invocation Found Fatal to Recovery Claim: Delhi High Court Dismisses GAIL’s Appeal    |     Adverse Remarks in APAR Recorded Without Objectivity and Likely Motivated by Bias: Delhi High Court Quashes Biased APAR Downgrade of CRPF Officer    |    

Non-Disclosure Leads to Cancellation of Petrol Pump Candidature: P&H HC

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a recent judgment delivered on November 21, 2023, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has upheld the rules governing the allotment of petrol pump stations in a case where the candidature of an applicant was canceled due to the non-disclosure of a 1 marla land abutting the road. The court’s decision highlights the importance of transparency and compliance with terms and conditions in such allotment processes.

The petitioner, Mr. Satish Kumar, had applied for the allotment of a petrol pump station and was initially selected in a draw of lots. However, a complaint lodged by another candidate, Praveen Kumar, alleged that Mr. Kumar had misdeclared particulars of the offered land. The respondent, Indian Oil Corporation Limited, conducted an inquiry and discovered that there was 1 marla land between Mr. Kumar’s land and the public road, which he had not disclosed in his application.

The court noted that the respondent was bound by the terms and conditions outlined in the brochure for the selection of dealers. Clause 21 of the brochure explicitly stated that the candidature of an applicant could be rejected if any statement made in the application or related documents was found to be incorrect.

In its observation, the court stated, “The respondent is bound by terms and conditions of the brochure. This Court cannot ask the respondent to allot petrol pump to petitioner when there are disputed questions of facts and there is no allegation of manifest arbitrariness and mala fide intention on the part of respondent.”

The judgment further emphasized the need for applicants to provide accurate and complete information in their applications for such allotments. The court found that Mr. Kumar had not disclosed the existence of the 1 marla land, which was crucial in determining the eligibility for the petrol pump allotment.

Ultimately, the court dismissed Mr. Kumar’s petition seeking to set aside the cancellation of his candidature, upholding the respondent’s rejection due to the non-disclosure of the 1 marla land. The judgment serves as a reminder of the importance of adhering to the terms and conditions set forth in such allotment processes.

Date of Decision: 21.11.2023

SATISH KUMAR  VS INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED AND ANOTHER

Similar News