LT.COL.(MRS.)MARIA ZACHARIA V. UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS

WP(C)/20272/2009

AI Insights

The case involves Lt. Col. (Mrs.) Maria Zacharia, who applied for an LPG distributorship as per an advertisement (Ext.R3(a)). Her application was rejected on three grounds: discrepancies in the declared annual income and the income shown in the SARAL form, inconsistencies in the bank balance declared in the application and the actual bank statement, and non-conformity of the income declaration with the declaration made to the Income Tax Department. The petitioner challenged these grounds in the writ petition. The court examined the discrepancies and found them sufficient to uphold the rejection of the application, citing that the information provided in the application was incorrect, false, or misrepresented, which violated the terms of the application notice.

• Counselvise Citation: [2009] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 722471 (HC-KERALA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 19-10-2009
• Assessment Year: misc
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: T P M IBRAHIM KHAN; N N SUGUNAPALAN; S SUJIN
• Assessee Lawyers: C C PADMAKUMAR
• Keywords: Document Verification; Income Declaration; LPG Distributors; Bank Balance

Judgement Text

" IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 19TH OCTOBER 2009 / 27TH ASWINA 1931 WP(C).No. 20272 of 2009(D) ---------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ LT.COL.(MRS.)MARIA ZACHARIA, W/O. SRI THOMAS MATHEW, KARUMULLUMTHADATHIL HOUSE, KANAKKARY.P.O., ETTUMANOOR, KOTTAYAM DIST. BY ADV. MR.C.C.PADMAKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. UNION OF INDIA, REP. BY THE SECRETARY MINISTRY OF PETROLEUM, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, NEW DELHI-100001. 2. THE BHARATH PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD., KOCHI LPG TERRITORY OFFICE, AMBALAMUGAL,KOCHI REP. BY THE CHAIRMAN. 3. THE TERRITORY MANAGER (LPG) KOCHI LPG TERRITORY OFFICE, AMBLAMUGAL KOCHI. R1 BY MR.T.P.M.IBRAHIMKHAN, ASST.SOLICITOR R2 & R3 BY MR.N.N.SUGUNAPALAN, SENIOR ADVOCATE R2 & R3 BY ADV.MR.S.SUJIN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: tss THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J ........................................... WP(C).NO. 20272 OF 2009 ............................................ DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2009 JUDGMENT Pursuant to Ext.R3(a) advertisement inviting applications for appointment of LPG Distributors, the petitioner applied for being considered in a category earmarked in the said notification. The disputes between the parties do not revolve on the identity of the category. The crux of the controversy is that the applicant has been refused selection on the three grounds stated in Ext.P3, which alone form the subject matter of this writ petition, wherein the petitioner challenges the refusal to select her. 2. The three grounds mentioned in Ext.P3 for rejecting the candidature of the petitioner are three-fold. Firstly, the annual income disclosed in the original application supported by a notarised affidavit was Rs.3,10,215/-. However, the supporting SARAL form showed the annual income relevant for the financial year as only Rs.2,22,202/-. The second ground is that while the petitioner stated in the application that an amount of Rs.7,00,000/- is available in his S.B account in SBT, the bank Wpc 20272/2009 2 statement showed that only an amount of Rs.5,26,202/- was available as balance, as on the date of application. The third is that the details shown in the annual income declaration do not conform to the declaration made before the Income Tax Department. Accordingly, the official respondents concluded that there is violation of the terms of the notice inviting applications. 3. Counter affidavit is on record. 4. With the reply affidavit, petitioner does not dispute the contradiction between the contents of the SARAL form and the declaration made by her as regards income in the application for dealership. She also does not dispute the variance in the bank balance as noted in Ext.P3. If there is no dispute about the conflict between the income disclosed in the SARAL form and the income shown in the petitioner's application, it goes without saying that she did not make a declaration of annual income in terms of her declaration made before the Income Tax authorities. 5. With the aforesaid, adverting to the undisputed Ext.R3 (a), it needs to be noticed that at serial no.11, the process for selection and evaluation criteria are enumerated. The learned Wpc 20272/2009 3 counsel for the petitioner points out that Ext.P5 produced along with the reply affidavit discloses that the petitioner was alloted marks for her capability to provide land and infrastructure; capability to provide finance; and other relevant details and therefore if the selection committee had awarded her marks under those heads, it would be impermissible for the company to be permitted to overwrite the marks awarded by the selection committee. A careful reading of clause 11 of Ext.R3(a) in its entirety will show that the company had classified the parameters into a,b,c,d and f,g and h. After the tabular form in Ext.R3(a) showing that the total marks for evaluation is 100, the immediately succeeding statement is that the evaluation on the parameters a to d are documents based and will be done on the basis of the information given in the application. On verification, if it is found that the information given in the application is incorrect-false-misrepresented-then the applicant's candidature will stand cancelled and will not be eligible for distributorship. The parameters at serial nos. f to h is evaluated based on interview. Therefore, there is a clear distinction between those Wpc 20272/2009 4 matters which fall exclusively within the domain of the interviewing authority and those matters where final verification has to be done on the basis of the documents. In so far as the parameters a to d are concerned, the marks awarded in the interview, based on the information given in the application, will give way, if on verification it is found that the information given in the application is incorrect/false/misrepresented. Capability to provide finance and capability to provide infrastructure are, apart from education qualification and age, among the parameters a to d; thereby meaning those which would be determined on the basis of documentary evidence. As already noticed, the petitioner does not dispute the fact that the income disclosed by her in the application was at variance with the declaration made by her in the SARAL form. Equally, the bank statement was at variance with what was declared as bank balance in the application. When the conflict between the SARAL form and the income declared in the application, is already noticed, the income declaration was not in terms of the declaration between the income tax authorities. With these documentary materials staring at the Wpc 20272/2009 5 petitioner, this writ petition has necessarily to fail. In the result, this writ petition is dismissed. Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances, the parties are directed to bear their respective costs. THOTTATHIL B RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE lgk/20/10 "