Raj Rishi Gupta vs Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. and others

N. K. Sodhi, J.—Whether the criteria of income fixed by an Oil Company for the allotment of retail outlet refers to gross income without deduction of expenditure which may otherwise be deductible for purposes of assessment under the Income-lax Act is the short but interesting question that arises for determination in Letters Patent Appeal No. 267 of 1995 and Civil Writ Petition 3618 of 1995. Both these cases can be conveniently disposed of by one order as the challenge in them is to the allotment of a retail outlet in favour of Smt. Anita Singhal, respondent in these cases.

Brief facts of the case may first be noticed. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. (for short, the Corporation) proposed to appoint a dealer for a retail outlet at Bata Morn, Faridabad in the State of Haryana and it invited applications through an advertisement published in various newspapers on April 16, 1995 under the general category. Amongst others, the two important conditions of eligibility with which we are concerned in these cases are (i) that the applicant should be a resident of Faridabad District for a period of not less than 5 years immediately preceding the date of application, and (ii) that he/she should have a family income (as defined in the application form) of not more than Rs. 50,000, - in the last financial year i.e. 1989-90. The criteria of income as mentioned in the application form as also in the Manual for Selection of Dealers and Distributors for the relevant year reads as under :--

"Income (For all categories)

The candidate''s income should not be more than Rs. 50,000/- per annum. The income for this purpose would include income of the candidate, his/her spouse, dependent children put together. In case the candidate happens to be dependent on his/her parenis, then his/her parents income would also be taken into consideration for computing the total income."

Raj Rishi Gupta, Smt. Anita Singhal and Dinesh K. Sharma (hereinafter referred to as Gupta, Singhal and Sharma respectively) and many others submitted their applications on prescribed form within the stipulated period. Gupta claiming himself to be an unemployed graduate and a dependent upon his parents stated in his application that his total income from interest was Rs. 6,000/- and that of his father Shri R.D. Gupta was Rs. 40,000/-. Since the total of his income and that of his father was less than Rs. 50,000/- he filed an affidavit along with his application supporting this averment. Singhal stated in the application that her total gross income was Rs. 20,074.95 and that her husband Sri G.S. Singhal was Rs. 27,605.65 the total of which was less than Rs. 50,000/- and, therefore, she too filed an affidavit to this effect. As it later transpired the details of her income as is clear from the computation of taxable income for the assessment year 1990-91 are that she had a professional income of Rs. 10,100/-. She also received bank interest and dividend of Rs. 234.95 and she also received interest from various parties to the tune of Rs. 16,780/-. She claimed that she paid an amount of Rs. 7040/- as interest-to two parties as mentioned in the computation of her income. She then deducted this amount from Rs. 16,780/-and claimed that the total interest income received by her was Rs. 9740/-. It was, thus, claimed by her that her gross income was only Rs. 20,074.95/-. When it came to computing her husband''s income it is shown that the gross income that he received during the relevant accounting year was Rs.21,973/-and since he paid a sum of Rs. 6775/- as office rent he deducted his amount from his receipts. Again a sum of Rs. 12,407.65 has been shown to have been received by Singhal''s husband as interest from different sources. The total gross income is then shown as Rs. 27,605.65 after deducting the office rent as already stated above.

The Oil Selection Board constituted for the State of Haryana (hereinafter called; the Board) which is entrusted with the selection of dealers and distributors prepared a merit panel after interviewing the eligible applicants in which Gupta was placed at No. 1, Singhal at No. 2 and Sharma at No. 3. The Board accordingly made its recommendations to the General Manager of the Corporation whereupon the latter issued a letter of intent to Gupta on June 3, 1993 (Annexure P-7 with the writ petition) offering him the retail outlet dealership. Thereafter, Singhal made a number of compalints against Gupta to the Board and the Corporation alleging therein that Gupta was not eligible for the retail outlet. In her complaint dated July 28, 1993 (Annexure P-15 with the writ petition) it was alleged that Gupta was employed with M/s. Taylor Instruments Company (India) Ltd., Faridabad in its personnel department much before he filed the application for dealership and, therefore, he had mis-stated the facts in his application and also concealed the salary income which he received from this employment. She also informed the Board that Gupta as an em-, ployee of the aforesaid company was a subscriber to the Provident Fund and Employees'' State Insurance Schemes and the details of his subscription numbers were also supplied. It was also stated in the complaint that Gupta was not an unemployed graduate as he had described himself in the application. This complaint (Annexure P-15) was supported by an affidavit of Singha). On receipt of the complaints from Singhal, the Board made its inquiries after affording a number of hearing to Gupta. Copies of the complaints were also sent to him. The Board after inquiry came to the conclusion that Gupta was employed with M/s. Taylor Instruments Company (India) Ltd. Faridabad and that he had submitted an untrue, incorrect and false information in his application form and it also found that Gupta was drawing a salary of Rs. 2455/- per month which he did not disclose in his application. If this annual salary was added to the income of his father which he had disclosed in the application the total exceeded Rs.50,000/- and for this reason the Board took the view that Gupta was ineligible. The letter of intent issued to him was, therefore, cancelled as per order of the Board dated Oct. 21, 1993 (Annexure P22 with the writ petition). The Corporation thereafter issued a letter dated Dec. 1, 1993 (Annexure P24 with the writ petition) to Gupta cancelling the retail outlet dealership allotted to him earlier.

Thereafter on Dec. 6, 1993 (Annexure P25 with the writ petition) the Corporation offered the retail outlet dealership to Singhal who was No. 2 on the merit panel. At this stage Gupta filed Civil Writ Petition 2461 of 1994 in this Court challenging the order of the Board and that of the Corporation cancelling the letter of intent issued in his favour and also for quashing the letter of intent issued to Singhal. The facts that Gupta was employed -with M/s. Taylor Instruments Company (India) Ltd. Faridabad has not been denied by him. In fact he has nowhere stated in the writ petition that he was not employed with that company. It is also not in dispute that he described himself as an unemployed graduate in the application that he submitted to the Corporation for the allotment of the retail outlet. It is established on the record that Gupta was not dependent on his parents and he mis-stated /mis-represented facts in his application. Even in his writ petition he has not stated that he was not employed. The learned single Judge came to the conclusion that since Gupta had misrepresented the facts before the Corporation and the Board and also before this Court and did not come to this Court with clean hands, he was not entitled to any discretionary relief under Article 226 of the Constitution. The argument that the income of his father could not be included with his salary income for the purposes of determining his eligibility was not examined by the learned single Judge in view of his conduct. It was also urged before the learned single Judge that Singhal was not eligible because her income clubbed with that of her husband was more than Rs.50,000/- and she was, therefore, ineligible. This argument did not find favour with the learned single Judge and the learned Judge took the affidavit of Singhal stating that her income and that of her husband put together was less than Rs. 50,000/- as correct and it was observed that he was not sitting in appeal over the decision of the Board in this regard. The writ petition was accordingly dismissed. Gupta has filed Letters Patent Appeal No. 267 of 1995 in this Court against the decision of the learned single Judge. Around the same time Sharma also jumped in the fray and filed Civil Writ Petition 3618 of 1995 challenging the allotment of the retail outlet to Singhal. His case is that Singhal is ineligible as her income along with that of her husband exceeds Rs.50,000/- and since Gupta is also out of the consideration, the out let should be allotted to him as he was No. 3 in the merit panel. The Letters Patent Appeal as also the writ petition filed by Sharma were ordered to be heard together and are being disposed of by this order.

First we will take up the case of Gupta. There is no gainsaying the facf that he misstated facts before the Corporation and also before the Board and suppressed his salary income. Not only this, he claimed to be an unemployed graduate when he was not so and he did this presumably because there is some kind of preference available to such class of applicants in terms of the policy guidelines and Manual for Selection of Dealers and Distributors. When he approached this Court he again suppressed the fact of his employment and salary income. It is well settled that one who seeks an equitable relief must come to the Court with clean hands. In our opinion, the learned single Judge was right in nonsuiting him on the short ground that he had suppressed material facts from this Court and also from the Board and the Corporation. It is true that his salary income cannot be clubbed with the income of his father for the purpose of determining his eligibility but in view of his conduct we, too, are not inclined to go into the merits of his case and we dismiss the appeal filed by him. He has urged that Singhal is also not eligible as her incom clubbed with that of her husband exceeds Rs. 50,000/-. This contention will be dealt with while dealing with the case of Sharma herein after because Sharma too has alleged that Singhal is inelisible for the same reason.

Now coming to the case of Sharma. He wants the retail outlet to be allotted to him because according to him both Gupta and Singhal are ineligible and he is the only other applicant left in the merit panel prepared by the Board. Even Gupta has alleged that Singhal is ineligible and, therefore, the letter of intent issued to her on Dec. 6, 1993 be quashed. We may now examine whether Singhal is ineligible for the allotment. A reference to the earlier part of the judgment would reveal that she had filed an affidavit along with her application that her total income together with that of her husband was less than Rs. 50,000/- for the accounting year 1989-90. A perusal of the computation of her income and also that of her husband (Annexure R8 with the written statement) reveals that they have both claimed certain deductions from their gross income to which they might be entitled for purposes of assessment under the Income Tax Act and have worked out their net income accordingly. Their net income when clubbed together is less than Rs. 50,000/-. Now we take up the question as to whether the amounts which are deductible under the Income Tax Act can be deducted from the amount received for determining her eligibility for the allotment of a retail outlet. It is our considered opinion that this cannot be done. The income criteria as mentioned in the policy guidelines as also in the Manual for Selection of Dealers and Distributors has been quoted in the earlier part of the judgment and need not be recapitulated here. The word ''income'' as used therein has a wide meaning and in the very nature of things cannot be restricted to mean receipts of a person after deducing the necessary expenses incurred for the purpose of earning those receipts. Such an expenditure may be allowed as a valid deduction for purposes of computing one''s total income for assessment under the Income Tax Act but the same criteria cannot be adopted for determining eligibility under the Manual and the Policy guidelines for allotment of the retail outlet. The word ''income'' has to be construed according to its natural and ordinary meaning. If we accept the cohtention of Singhal that the deductions permissible under the Income Tax Act or other expenditure necessary to be incurred for purposes of earning the income have to be deducted then we would be substituting the word ''income'' with words like ''net income'' or with ''income assessable to income tax'' or with ''income after deduction of expenditure'' or some words of that kind. If that had been the intention of the corporation it would have put in the word ''net'' or some such word which would have made it clear that the income contemplated was the income after deducting the expenses or income which was assessable to tax but that is not there. In its ordinary sense the word ''income'' means all that which comes in. In other words, broadly speaking all receipts in the hands of a person would be termed as his income. If we treat all receipts in the hands of Singhal and her husband as their income then the interest which Singhal has paid to other parties will have to be included in her income and similarly the rent paid by her husband too cannot be excluded from his income. If these amounts are included then the total income of Singhal and that of her husband certainly exceeds Rs. 50,000/-. In this view of the matter, we have no option but to hold that Singhal was ineligible for the allotment in question. Consequently, the letter of allotment issued to her on Dec. 6, 1993 is hereby quashed.

The only other question that survives for consideration is whether Sharma should get allotment of the retail outlet. No doubt, he is the only successful candidate left in the merit panel and in the normal course he should have got it but in view of the preliminary objections taken by the respondents in their written statement Sharma too is not eligible. It is stated that Sharma was not a resident of Faridabad District for a period of five years immediately preceding the date of application. It is common case of the parties that Sharma appended along with his application a domicile certificate and not a certificate of residence as was required as per the conditions of eligibility. Moreover, he also appended with his application a certificate issued by the University of Madras certifying that he had qualified for a degree of Bachelor of Engineering in the examination held in April, 1989. This clearly shows that he attended the degree course of Engineering in Madras for five years prior to the passing of the examination in 1989. He was, therefore, not residing in the District of Faridabad during that period which was a condition precedent for the allotment. Consequently, he is clearly ineligible in view of the condition of eligibility regarding his residence as mentioned in the advertisement as also in the Manual for Selection of Dealers and distributors. He, cannot, therefore, be allotted outlet and he cannot claim the same merely because he was on the merit panel.

In the result, Letters Patent Appeal 267 of 1995 and Civil Writ Petition 3618 of 1995 are partly allowed to the extent that the allotment of the retail outlet in favour of Singhal is quashed and it is held that none of the three in the merit panel i.e. Gupta, Singhal or Sharma is entitled to the allotment of the retail outlet. The Corporation may, if so advised, allot the retail outlet in question by inviting fresh applications and in accordance with law. There is no order as to costs.

Order accordingly.