TMI Blog2008 (11) TMI 715X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d under the Indian Companies Act, 1956. It is a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. Its function, inter alia, is allotment of grant of LPG distributorship. 3. An advertisement was issued by the first respondent inviting applications for grant of LPG distributorship for different areas including the one for Ballabhgarh district, in terms whereof a person convicted for commission of any offence involving moral turpitude/economic offence and those against whom charges had been framed by the court were ineligible therefor. In the said advertisement dated 18.7.1998 published in a daily newspaper `The Tribune' and `Dainik Tribune' it was stated : 2. Eligibility : The applicant should be : XXX XXX ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h affidavit as per appendix `A'. 5. In the manual issued by the respondent No.1, it was stated : 12.Conviction: (i)Candidates convicted for any criminal offence involving moral turpitude and/or economic offence (other than freedom struggle) would not be eligible for dealership/ distributorship and if such a person is allotted the dealership/distributorship by suppression of information, it will be cancelled. 6. Indisputably, Respondent No.5 was proceeded against in a criminal case for alleged commission of offences under Sections 452, 323, 506 and 34 IPC in the year 1999. Another First Information Report was lodged against him on or about 9.7.2001 under Sections 147, 148, 353, 186, 341 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code. 7. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... enugopal, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of appellant, submitted that although in the advertisement issued for grant of allotment of the LPG dealership, lodging of a first information report or framing of charge were not stated to be the relevant factors for the purpose of disqualifying a candidate, in all fairness, the 5th respondent should have mentioned thereabout in his application for grant of LPG dealership. In any event, as the writ petition suffered from delay and latches, the impugned order should be set aside. 11. Mr. Mahabir Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the 5th respondent, on the other hand, would contend that as the case of the 5th respondent had not been considered at all, there is no infirmity i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... avbharat Times' mentioned `framing of charge in a criminal case' as a disqualification, the advertisement published in `The Tribune' and the `Dainik Tribune' framing of charge in a criminal case was not mentioned as a disqualification. In the application form also, the applicant was not required to furnish any information regarding any framing of charge in a criminal case. It was neither necessary nor possible for the 5th respondent to disclose the fact that two first information reports had been lodged against him and in one of them he had been charged sheeted. The purported disqualification attributed to him, therefore, led to an unjust decision. The High Court, however, in our opinion failed to take into consideration the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... i Minicipal Council v. Pan Singh Ors. [(2007) 9 SCC 278], this Court held : 16. There is another aspect of the matter which cannot be lost sight of. The respondents herein filed a writ petition after 17 years. They did not agitate their grievances for a long time. They, as noticed herein, did not claim parity with the 17 workmen at the earliest possible opportunity. They did not implead themselves as parties even in the reference made by the State before the Industrial Tribunal. It is not their case that after 1982, those employees who were employed or who were recruited after the cut-off date have been granted the said scale of pay. After such a long time, therefore, the writ petitions could not have been entertained even if they are ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ur of the appellant in May 2004. It was not questioned immediately after issuance of the letter of intent in favour of appellant in May 2004. In his writ application, the 5th respondent did not question the grant of dealership in favour of the appellant. He was afforded an opportunity to amend the writ petition. He filed such an application only after 16 months. However, the writ petition itself was withdrawn and only in October 2006, the present writ application was filed. From the facts as noticed hereinbefore, there can, therefore, be no doubt that from May 2004 to October 2006, the respondent did not take any step to challenge insurance of the letter of intent granting dealership in favour of appellant. 18. Considering the fact that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
