Kamlesh Sharma, J.
1. In this writ petition, the Letter of Intent issued in favour of the third respondent, Smt. Kamla Rani, granting her dealership for a dealer owned Petrol and H.S.D. Retail Outlet at Ner Chowk National Highway, District Mandi (hereinafter called 'the retail outlet') has been challenged on the ground, inter alia, that she was not qualified having her family income more than Rs. 50,000/- annually in the relevant financial year 1991-92; she does not ordinarily reside in District Mandi and was not entitled for preference being a candidate belonging to the District for which the dealership is advertised and her Physically-handicapped certificate produced by her is not issued by the competent authority.
2. The facts in brief are that notice inviting applications for retail outlet, from amongst chandidates belonging to 'Physically Handicapped/Personnel of Para Military Forces disabled on duty/Widows of Personnel of Para Military Forces who die in line with the course of duty' was published in the daily Tribune on 13-2-1993 (Annexure P-A), in response to which the petitioner, third respondent Smt. Kamla Rani and intervenor seventh respondent Rajesh Kumar Arora, along with other candidates applied. They were interviewed on 6-9-1993 at Hotel Himland (East), Shimla, by the Oil Selection Board (Himachal Pradesh) on whose recommendations, Letter of Intent for the Retail Outlet was issued to the third respondent. The eligibility criteria for selection for dealership/ distributorship is provided in the latest instructions/guidelines. The criteria which are relevant for the controversy raised in this writ petition are reproduced hereinbelow :-
'I. xxx xxx xxx xxxII. xxx xxx xxx xxxIII. xxx xxx xxx xxx3. xxx xxx xxx xxx 4. RESIDENCE
(i) For SC/ST&PH; categories.
According to the directions in the advertisement, residents of adjoining districts as mentioned in the advertisement can apply. However, other things being equal, preference will be given to candidates belonging to the district in which the proposed dealership/distributorship is to be located.
(ii) For FF and Open Categories
A resident of the concerned district alone can apply.
(iii) for other than PH candidates in PH PH categories and DFF category.
Residents of any district in the State can apply.'
5. xxx xxx xxx xxx 6. xxx xxx xxx xxx 7. ELIGIBILITY FOR PHYSICALLY HANDICAPPED/GOVERNMENT PERSONNEL DISABLED ON DUTY/WIDOWS OF GOVT. PERSONNEL WHO DIE IN THE COURSE OR DUTY.
Persons applying for dealreship/distributorship under 'PH' category should produce a certificate from the Civil Surgeon/Chief Medical Officer or Supdt. of a Government Hospital that he/she is orthopaedically handicapped to the extent of minimum 40% permanent/partial disability of either upper or lower limbs or 50% permanent/partial disability of both upper and lower limbs together, or certificates as stipulated in the advertisement.'
8. xxx xxx xxx xxx 9. INCOME (FOR AND CATEGORIES)
The candidate's income should not be more than Rs. 50,000/ - per annum. The income for this purpose would include the income of the candidate, his/her spouse, dependent children put together. In case the candidate happens to be dependent on his/her parents, his/her parents income would also be taken into consideration for computing the total income.'
3. The eligibility criteria were also mentioned in the notice inviting applicationsappearing in the Tribunal (Annexure P-A).
4. According to Sh. M. L. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner, the main allegation against the third respondent is that she was not eligible as her income was more than Rs. 50,000/- per annum, including the income of her husband, for the relevant financial year 1991-92. The petitioner has placed on record the declaration of annual income submitted by the third respondent (Annexure PA-2) along with her application wherein she has mentioned her income as 'NIL' from all the sources. The income of her husband has been mentioned as Rs. 37440/-from salary. She had also given affidavit in Form Appendix A (Annexure PEI) deposing that her gross income including that of her spouse and dependent children put together did not exceed Rs. 50,000/- per annum in the last financial year, as detailed in the Income Declaration attached. According to the petitioner, both the Declaration of Annual Income as well as the deposition in the affidavit were untrue as the third respondent was in employment and had an income, including the income of her husband amounting to Rs. 37440/-, which was more than Rs. 50,000/- in the financial year 1991-92.
5. In her reply, the the third respondent has admitted that during the financial year 1991-92 she was employed as Chain-man on daily wage in the office of the Settlement Officer, Shimla Divisions, According to her, she has been regularised as Chain man with effect from 31-3-1993 on the basic salary of Rs. 750/- + allowances and she joined as such on 12-4-1993. Along with her reply-affidavit, she has filed a certificate issued by the Assistant Settlement Officer, Shimla Division, Shimla, that an amount of Rs. 13,884/ -was paid as wages to her from April, 1991 to March, 1992 (Annexure R3/B). Pay slip of her husband Sh. N.C. Himachali (Annexure R3/ A), who is working as Senior Clerk in the Health and Family Welfare Deptt.. Himachal Pradesh, has also been placed on record. He had drawn pay and allowance at the rate of Rs. 2,643/- per month during the period 1-4-1991 to 31 -3-1992, the total of which comes ot Rs. 31,716/-. As such, her total income was Rs. 45,600./- for the financial year 1991-92. According to her. since she was not holder of any post and was working only on daily wage basis, there was no concealment of any fact on her part. Moreover, being in employment, she was not disqualified for submitting her application and the only requirement of rule is that on her selection and before she is issued letter of appointment for the dealership, she will have to resign from service and prove the acceptance of her resignation.
6. The stand taken by the second and the fifth respondents in their separate replies is that they have considered and selected her on the basis of her Declaration of Annual Income as well as affidavit, according to which her income was less than Rs. 50,000/-and if at any stage the information supplied by her is found false and contrary to the instructions given in the manual, the letter of Intent granting dealership is liable to be cancelled. It is also brought on record by the 2nd respondent that, '...... after the panel of selected candidates had been prepared, on a complaint which had been received an enquiry was conducted by respondent No. 2, through one of its officers Sh. Yogesh Trehan (Senior Sales Officer) which revealed that respondent No. 3 had been employed. Further, it came to light that in any case the income of respondent No. 3 and her husband did not exceed Rs. 50,000/- p.a. i.e. for the relevant financial year from 1-4-1991 to 31-3-1992.....'
7. From the material on record, we have no hesitation to hold that the third respondent did conceal that she was employed, may be on daily wage and her personal income from the source of wages was Rs. 13,884/-during the financial year 1991-92. Her declaration that her income was 'NIL' was untrue. She had disclosed the income of her husband from the source of salary as Rs. 37,440/- and if her own income of Rs. 13,884/-is added to it, her affidavit that the gross income, namely, her own income and of her spouse did not exceed Rs. 50,000/- per annum during the financial year 1991-92 was also untrue. In her reply-affidavit, the third respondent has not explained that on what basis the figure of income of her husband from the source of salary was given at Rs. 37,440/-, if it was Rs. 31716/- as now shown by placing on record his pay slip (Annexure R3/A).
8. All these facts and circumstances on record point out that the third respondent had withheld the information of her employment and income to show that her income was less than Rs. 50,000/- per annum in order to be eligible for selection as dealer of the retail outlet. The explanation given by Mr. M.S. Chandel, learned counsel for the third respondent, that she had not disclosed about the employment and income because of her being under the impression that she was not holding a post or was employed on daily wage or that she was careless or foolish is not acceptable as the third respondent is educated and working in an office and has the guidance of her husband who is employed as a Senior Clerk in the Health and Family Welfare Department of the Government of Himachal Pradesh.
9. In view of our above findings, a serious doubt has arisen in respect of eligibility of the third respondent that her income during the financial year 1991-92 was less than Rupees 50,000/- per annum. But there is no doubt that the declaration of Annual Income filed by her along with her application was untrue and on this ground alone, the Letter of Intent issued in her favour can be withdrawn as per Clause 10 of the affidavit in Form Appendix 'A' sworn by her and filed along with her application. It is:--
'That if any information/declaration given by me in my application or in any document submitted by me in support of my application for the award of dealership/distributorship or in this affidavit shall be found to be untrue or incorrect or false, Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. would be within its rights to withdraw the letter of intent, terminate the dealership/distributorship (if already appointed) and that I would have no claim, whatsoever, against Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. for such withdrawal, termination.'
10. Another challenge to the selection of the third respondent for retail outlet is that the third respondent is not ordinarily residing in District Mandi, as such, other things being equal, she is not entitled to preference for selection for the reason that she belongs to District Mandi wherein Ner Chowk falls. Sh. Sharma has tried to find fault with the certificate issued by the Superintendent of Police District Mandi (Annexure PA3) that the third respondent had been residing in village Tihra, P.O. Tihra, Teh. Sarkaghat, District Mandi, for the last five years as well as the Residence Certificate (Annexure PA5) issued by the Executive Magistrate, Mandi, to the same effect, on the ground that she has been residing in Shimla with her husband on account of thir employment in Shimla and also that the President, Gram Panchayat Tihra has given certificate (Annexure PA4) that no lady of the name of Kamla Rani wife of Sh. N.C. Himachali is residing in village Tihra, Tehsil Sarkaghat, District Mandi. In her reply-affidavit, the third respondent has stated that but for her employment and the employment of her husband, they are residents of village & P.O. Tihra, Tehsil Sarkaghat, District Mandi, where they are having their immovable property and that the certificates Annexures PA3/3 and PA3/5 were issued after requisite verification. We do not find any substance in this submission of Sh. Sharma. As per the eligibility criteria provided in Para 2 of the Notice (Annexure PA) read with relevant instructions/guidelines, residents of Mandi, Kangra, Hamirpur, Bilaspur, Solan, Shimla and Kullu Districts for a period not less that 5 years immediately preceding date of application could apply. However, other things being equal, the candidate belonging to the District for which dealership is advertised, in the present case, District Mandi, was to be given preference. Since the petitioners as well as the third respondent belong to District Mandi, there was no question of giving preference to the third respondent vis-a-vis the petitioner. Above all, we have no reason to doubt the certificates (Annexures PA3 and PA5) issued by the competent authorities after verification.
11. Apother challenge made by Sh. Sharma is that Handicap Certificate (An-nexure PA-6) filed by the third respondent is not issued by the competent authority. According to him, it is issued by Orthopaedics Surgeon and counter-signed by the Chief Medical Officer whereas the competent authority provided in the instructions/guidelines is Civil Surgeon/Chief Medical Officer or Superintendent of Government Hospital. We find this objection too technical. Rather, it is the Orthopaedics Surgeon who examines a person who could give certificate in respect of the percentage of disability which certificate if counter-signed by the Chief Medical Officer becomes his certificate.
12. Shri Vinay Kuthiala, learned counsel appearing for the intervenor seventh respondent has given support to all the three challenges laid on behalf of the petitioner which we have already dealt with. He has added -that degree of physical handicap suffered by the third respondent is not as per the criteria inasmuch as it is not of both upper and lower limbs together, though it is 55% permanent and of upper limb. This argument has been raised to be rejected. The language of para 111.7 of the criteria is very clear that if disability is of either upper or lower limb it should be of minimum 40% and if both the limbs were taken together it should be of minimum 50%.
13. In view of our above findings, the third respondent had given declaration of her annual income which was untrue and it was in serious doubt that her annual income was less than Rs. 50,000/-, we declare that the third respondent has rendered herself ineligible for the grunt of dealership of retail outlet, as such, the letter of intent issued to her in this regard is set aside and quashed. We direct the Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. 'to give letter of intent to the next candidate empanelled by the Oil Selection Board. The writ petition is allowed in these terms. No costs.