LexSHIV KANT YADAV versus INDIAN OIL CORPORATION AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
SHIV KANT Y ADA V
M.
v.
:r
INDIAN OIL CORPORATION AND ORS.
APRIL 9, 2007
B
[DR. ARIJIT PASA Y AT AND LOKESHWAR SINGH PANT A, JJ.]
Indian Contract Act, 1872:
-}-
c
Dealership Contract-Invitation of application by Indian Oil
-:.:--
Corporation for award of dealership-Selection-One of the candidates
allegedly did not disclose the correct information-Enquiry-Cancellation
of selection of the incumbent-Challenge t~Dismissed by High Court holding
~
that the income was not fully disclosed by the incumbent-On appeal, Held:
)
·::~-
True and correct d{sclosure of fact is the requirement for consideration of the
D application for award of dealership-Not complied with by the incumbent-
Hence, order of the High Court does not suffer from any infirmity to warrant
interference.
Indian Oil Corporation invited applications to award dealership of its
~
product at Dist. Etah., U.P. The Selection Board prepared a panel of the
E candidates, on the basis of which the Corporation proposed to award dealership.
Candidates at serial nos. 2 and 3 of the panel filed complaints against the
selection contending that some of the candidates did not disclose the correct
i~formation in their applications and, therefore, they were not qualified to
get dealership. The Corporation, after holding an enquiry, cancelled the
F
selection of such candidates including the appellant. Consequently, the
selection of the appellant was cancelled and Letter of Intent (LOI) was issued
in favour of respondent No.4. The order was challenged by the appellant by
~-
filing a writ petition, which was dismissed by the High Court holding that the
~
income was not fully disclosed by the appellant. Hence the present appeal.
G
Appellant contended that no mens rea and mere mistake and unintended
omission cannot be a ground for cancellation of dealership.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1. There was a requirement to disclose the true and-correct
.h..
H
1000
.~
SHIV KANT Y ADA V v. INDIAN OIL COPRN. [PASA YAT, I.]
1001
.
-
~
fact for award of dealership in the application, which does not appear to have A
been done. (Para 14) (1005-G)
Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan and Ors. v. Ram Ratan Yadav, (2003) 3
SCC 437; State of A.P. and Anr. v. T. Suryachandra Rao, {2005) 6 SCC 149
and Bhaurao Dagdu Paralkar v. State of Maharashtra and Ors., [2003) 7 SCC
B
605, relied on.
1.2. In view of the undertaking that if any factual mis-statement or
-;
declaration is made, that permits cancellation of the allotment The order of
the High Court does not suffer from any infirmity to warrant interference.
[Para 16) (1006-D)
c
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1844 of2007.
_J~
From the Final Judgment and Order dated 11.11.2005 of the High Court
of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow bench, Lucknow in Writ Petition No.
1949(M/B) of2005.
D
V.A. Mohta, Aniruddha P. Mayee, Sanjeev Kumar Chaoudhary, Sanjay
r
Visen and Nilakant Nayak for the Appellant.
Dr. R.G. Padia, Sanjay Kumar Singh, M.P. Shorawala, H.K. Puri, S.K. Puri,
Ujjawal Banerjee, Priya Puri, V .M. Chauhan and Anuvrat Shanna for the E
Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
DR ARIJIT PASAYA T, J. l. Leave granted.
2. Challenge in this appeal is the order passed by a Division Bench of F
~
the Allahabad High Court dismissing the Writ Petition filed by Shiv Kant
Yadav, the appellant herein.
3. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:
Indian Oil Corporation (in short the 'Corporation') invited applications G
from desirous persons by offering advertisements through publication in
newspapers to select suitable persons and grant Letter of Intent (in short
-'
'LOI') to award dealership of SKO/LDO at Jaleshar, Dist. Etah. Appellant and
'
several others applied for the same. The Selection Board scrutinized- the
applications on 28th and 29th November, 2003. Names of the applicants in H
~-
1002
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2007) 4 S.C.R.
A order of preference were indicated in the panel of selected candidates, on the
x
basis of which the Corporation proposed to award dealership. They are as
follows: (i) appellant- Shiv Kant Yadav; (ii) respondent No.4- Smt. Usha
Shanna and (iii) Hari Om Singh who was not impleaded in the writ petition.
Usha and Hari Om Singh fl.led complaints inter-se between themselves against
B
aforesaid selection contending that candidates did not disclose the correct
information in their applications and, thExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.