Non-Production Of Case Property And Missing Link Evidence In Seizure Cases Vitiates Prosecution: Himachal Pradesh High Court Employees Compensation Act | Death Due To Cardiac Arrest During Employment Is An 'Accident' Arising Out Of Stress And Strain Of Duty: J&K High Court Transfer Of Proceedings | Courts Must Issue Fresh Notice To Parties Even If They Had Appeared Before The Transferor Court: Kerala High Court Sets Aside Ex-Parte Award Section 80P(4) IT Act Does Not Deny Deduction To Regional Rural Banks As They Retain The 'Deemed Co-operative Society' Status Under Section 22 RRB Act: Madras High Court Property Purchased In Name Of Child For Family Benefit Is Not A 'Benami Transaction' Under Section 2(9) Of The 1988 Act: Madhya Pradesh High Court Person Without Caveatable Interest Cannot Challenge Will Or Seek Revocation Of Probate: Madras High Court Divorce | Cruelty Must Be Assessed By Cumulative Effect Of Matrimonial Conduct Rather Than Isolated Incidents: Orissa High Court Merely Labeling Insurance Policy As Comprehensive Does Not Create Unlimited Liability: MP High Court Order VII Rule 11 CPC | Plaint Must Be Rejected If Limitation Bar Is Apparent From Face Of Pleadings: Patna High Court Limitation Act | 'Sufficient Cause' Cannot Be Used To Revive Stale Or Dead Claims By State: Orissa High Court Quashes Order Condoning 53-Year Delay Employee Cannot Remain Dormant Like Rip Van Winkle & Awaken At Convenience: Punjab & Haryana High Court Dismisses Stale Service Plea With ₹25K Cost Section 29 NDPS Act | Mere Allegation Of 'Cooperation' Without Specific Overt Acts Cannot Sustain Charge Of Conspiracy: Rajasthan High Court Forest Land Status Does Not Extinguish Private Civil Title: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Decree For Possession Once Admitted In Evidence, Document Cannot Be De-Marked On Grounds Of Insufficiency Of Stamp Duty: Telangana High Court Section 190 BNSS | Mere Presence In Unlawful Assembly With Active Intent Renders Member Vicariously Liable For Homicidal Act: Punjab & Haryana High Court Contributory Negligence Under Motor Vehicles Act Cannot Be Inferred Without Cogent Evidence: Telangana High Court Enhances Compensation Motor Vehicles Act | Section 164 Compensation Of Rs. 5 Lakhs Applicable Even To Pending Claims Arising Prior To 2019 Amendment: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consumer Protection Act | Builder Liable To Pay Interest For Delayed Possession Despite Force Majeure Plea If Agreement Executed Post-Outbreak: State Commission

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

Latest Legal News