JUDGMENT
R.L. Anand, J.
1. By this judgment I dispose of two Regular Second Appeals Nos. 1064 and 1531 of 1996 as both the appeals have arisen from the judgment and decree dated 6.2.1996 passed by the Court of Additional District Judge, Chandigarh, who affirmed the judgment and decree dated 23.2.1994 passed by the Court of Sub-Judge, 1st Class. Chandigarh.
2. The brief facts of the case leading to the institution of suit by Arun Messey, plaintiff-respondent No. 1, were that he along with defendants Sukhdarshan Singh and Smt. Kavita Jain applied for the allotment of L.P.G. Distribution at Kharar. There were several other applicants, but the plaintiff and the defendants named above were invited by defendant Nos. 1 and 2, i.e., Indian Oil Corporation and the Oil Selection Board, respectively, for the allotment of distributorship after scrutiny of applications. After coming to know that the name of the plaintiff was on the panel, the defendants Sukhdarshan Singh and Smt. Kavita Jain (defendants Nos. 3 and 4, respectively started making false complaints against him. Although the Area Manager of the defendant-Corporation found the complaints to be false, yet defendant No. 3 Smt. Kavita Jain managed to come on the panel at No. 1, whereas previously the plaintiff was at No. 1 When the plaintiff came to know that defendant No. 3 was about to be appointed as distributor, he filed the suit, but during the pendency of the suit the distributorship was allotted to defendant No. 3, ignoring the fact that the plaintiff was the only suitable candidate and defendants Nos. 3 and 4 were not eligible to be so appointed as they had made false statements/declarations. Defendant No. 4 Sukhdarshan Singh Bath was earning about Rs. 50,000/- per annum and was also having 4-1/2 acres of land from which he was getting additional income, but he did not disclose this fact and, therefore, his distributorship was liable to be cancelled.
3. Notice of the suit was given to the defendants and it was contested by defendant No. 3 Smt. Kavita Jain pleading, inter alia, that the suit of the plaintiff was not maintainable; that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to interfere in the selection process; that the suit had not been properly valued for the purpose of Court-fee and jurisdiction; that the Civil Court at Chandigarh had no territorial jurisdiction to decide the suit. On merits it was pleaded that the Area Manager had no jurisdiction to make the selection or appointment; that the selection was made by the Oil Selection Board. Only the field investigation was conducted by the Area Manager and as per his report the defendant was eligible for distributorship. The panel prepared by the defendants was not in order on merit but in alphabetical order. It was denied that the defendants had filed any complaint against the plaintiff. In the end it was pleaded that the family income of the defendant at the relevant time was much less than Rs. 24,000/- per annum and the land belonging to him was not in his possession as according to the compromise deed between him and his father, the possession and income of the land was to be enjoyed by his father during his life-time. It was pleaded that even if the income of the agricultural land is included in his income, the total income falls short of the prescribed income of Rs. 24,000/- per year.
4. Separate written statement was filed by defendants Nos. 1 and 2 and they pleaded that no legal right of the plaintiff has been infringed. The names of the plaintiff and defendants Nos. 3 and 4 were incorporated in the alphabetical order and final selection was made by the Oil Selection Board after the receipt of the Field Investigation Report. It was admitted by these defendants that although the plaintiff fulfilled the eligible criteria but he had no right to claim dealership over and above the other eligible candidates.
5. Separate written statement was also filed by defendant No. 4 Smt. Kavita Jain, in which she counter claimed that she was entitled to get the distributorship at Kharar.
6. From the pleadings of the parties, the trial Court framed the following issues:-
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to be appointed as LPG dealer/distributor of defendant No. 1 at Kharar? OPP.
2. Whether the allotment of LPG agency/distributorship at Kharar to the defendant No. 3 and his appointment as such is illegal and invalid? OPD.
3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of mandatory injunction as prayed for? OPD.
4. Whether this court has got no jurisdiction to try and decide the suit? OPD.
5. Whether the suit has been properly valued? OPD.
6. Relief.
The parties led oral and documentary evidence in support of their case and finally it was held by the trial Court vide findings given in para No. 28 of the judgment that defendant No. 3 Sukhdarshan Singh furnished wrong information and suppressed the facts, therefore, as per clause 7 of the application and clause 11 of the affidavit, the letter of intent is liable to be withdrawn and the dealership/distributorship is liable to be terminated notwithstanding the fact that the agency had already been commissioned. The trial Court also held that the agency was commissioned in the year 1991, i.e., during the pendency of the suit and it was allotted to defendant No. 3 subject to the decision of the suit. The trial Court also gave directions that defendants Nos. 1 and 2 should cancel/terminate the allotment of distributorship/agency in favour of defendant No. 3 and they will be at liberty to allot the agency afresh in accordance with the procedure and the plaintiff shall have the right to be considered along with other eligible candidates, if he was otherwise found eligible.
7. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the trial Court, Sukhdarshan Singh defendant No. 3 filed first appeal and plaintiff-Arun Messey also filed a separate appeal. Indian Oil Corporation, defendants Nos. 1 and 2 separately filed Civil Appeal and all the three appeals were disposed of vide judgment and decree dated 6.2.1996 passed by the Court of Additional District Judge, Chandigarh. All the three appeals were dismissed vide impugned judgment and decree dated 6.2.1996. It may be mentioned here that Arun Messey in his appeal prayed that the gas agency should be given to him instead of fresh decision in terms of the directions given by the trial Court. This request of Mr. Arun Messey did not find favour with the first appellate Court. This time the Indian Oil Corporation and Mr. Sukhdarshan Singh have filed two separate appeals against the judgment and decree dated 6.2.1996 and these appeals arc being disposed of with the assistance of Shri S.C. Kapoor, Senior Advocate, appearing on behalf of the Indian Oil Corporation; Shri Arun Jain, Advocate, appearing on behalf of Mr. Sukhdarshan Singh, and Shri S.S. Bains, Advocate, appearing on behalf of Mr. Arun Messey, contesting respondent-plaintiff.
8. Making an endeavour of the admission of the appeals Sarvshri S.C. Kapoor and Arun Jain submitted that the plaintiff was required to stand on his own legs and it was incumbent upon him to establish from the record that the income of Sukhdarshan Singh from all resources exceeded Rs. 24,000/- per year. There was no satisfactory evidence led by the plaintiff and the Courts below wrongly took into consideration the income of the agricultural land by holding that Sukhdarshan Singh was earning from the agricultural land. In fact, as per familysettlement the fruits from the agricultural land were to be enjoyed by the father of appellant Sukhdarshan Singh. Even otherwise mere retention of land by Sukhdarshan Singh is not presumptive evidence to conclude that he must be earning income from the land. According to the learned counsel, in the absence of any evidence, the decision of the Oil Selection Board cannot be disturbed lightly by the Civil Courts. The Board was satisfied that the income of the licencee did not exceed Rs. 24,000/- from all resources and such decision of the Indian Oil Corporation or the Board is not subject to scrutiny of the Civil Court.
9. I am a position to be swayed with the frontsal agrgument raised by the learned counsel for the appellants. Both the Courts below rightly dealt with in a convincing manner that Sukhdarshan Singh had concealed material facts in his application and furnished wring particulars. About his ionocme by way of affidavit and both the Courts below came to a conclusion that on account of those concealment of material facts, Sukhdarshan Singh was not eligible for the distributorshiop of the gas agency. It is a settled law that the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the Courts below cannot be interfered with in the second appeal. The trial court in paras Nos. 20 to 27 has thoroughly scanned the evidence with regard to the income of Sukhdar-shan Singh and then gave findings in para No. 28 that this defendant furnished wrong information and suppressed the facts. The interpretation given by the trial Court was again critically examined by the first appellate Court and in para No. 24 of the judgment the first appellate Court had categorically held that Sukhdarshan Singh when appearing in the witness-box admitted in no uncertain terms that he did not mention the facts in the application filed for the grant of gas agency that he was owner of some piece of agricultural land and that as per family settlement the income thereof was to go to his father till his life-time. The first appellate Court rightly came to the conclusion and drew the inference that Sukhdarshan Singh was the owner of the agricultural land. It is not believable that the agricultural land when put to use would not earn profits. The Khasra Girdawari which was taken into consideration shows that the agricultural land was under the self-cultivation of Sukhdarshan Singh and the theory of family settlement as propounded in D.W.4/A was a created piece of evidence in order to frustrate the version of the plaintiff. The said family settlement (Exhibit D.W.4/A) was never produced before the Revenue Authorities. It is an unregistered document produced at a very late stage with an idea to dislodge the claim of the plaintiff. A fact which is in the exclusive knowledge of the party has to be proved by him and could not be expected to be destroyed by the opposite party. 4-1/2 acres of land is not a small area from which it may be said that there was no income to Sukhdarshan Singh. The action on the part of the Oil Selection Board and the Indian Oil Corporation, being violative, certainly can be considered and scanned through in a judicial process by the Civil Courts because it ultimately affects the rights of the plaintiff, who has been illegally deprived of his right of consideration along with other eligible candidates.
10. An argument was also built by the learned counsel for the appellants that the cancellation of the gas agency at this stage by the High Court would create a great hardship to the consumers who have been registered with the dealership licencee. This argument is more on the moral side rather than on the legal side. The agency has been given to the appellant-Sukhdarshan Singh during the pendency of the suit and subject to the decision of the suit itself. The trial Court has rightly remarked in the judgment that there was no hurry on the part of the Indian Oil Corporation to grant agency and could easily wait till the decision of the suit. If Sukhdarshan Singh appellant had taken the agency on his own risk and consequences, he must face the music. The argument of Shri Arun Jain, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Sukhdarshan Singh appellant, also does not convince me that his client has made huge investment in getting the agency and his business would likely to be ruined. A usurper has no right either in equity or under the law to continue with his wrongs.
11. Mr. S.S. Bains, Advocate, learned counsel appearing for the contesting-respondent, has relied upon Sham Lal v. Union of India and Ors., (1995-1)109 P.L.R. 38; Jagtar Singh v. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. and Ors., (1995-2)110 P.L.R. 328; and Raj Rishi Gupta v. Hindustan petroleum Corporation Ltd., New Delhi, (1995-3)111 P.L.R. 256; in support of his arguments that it is the responsibility of the Court to ensure that no action of the State or any of its instrumentalities is in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution. Whenever a citizen complains and demonstrates that it is discriminatory or that it is unfair, unreasonable or arbitrary, the Court cannot be a helpless and silent spectator to the illegalities committed by the Oil Selection Board as well as by the Indian Oil Corporation nor the Court can be a party to a person who had procured benefit from a public institution by furnishing false material facts. Moreover the Court cannot become a party to a person who had tried to procure the benefits in spite of the fact that it was made clear to him that his alleged action would be subject to the decision of the suit.
12. I have gone through the well considered judgments of the Courts below with the help of the counsel for the parties and I am of the view that both these appeals are liable to be dismissed at the motion stage as no substantial question of law has been formulated and that the concurrent findings of fact of the Courts below cannot be lightly disturbed until and unless it is made out by the appellants that there was misreading of evidence.
13. No merit Dismissed.