Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/12272/2010 19/ 19 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 12272 of 2010
=========================================================
RANDHIRSINH
JASVANTSINH BHATI - Petitioner(s)
Versus
HINDUSTAN
PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD & 2 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
PERCY KAVINA WITH MR DEVANG VYAS
for
Petitioner(s) : 1,
None for Respondent(s) : 1 -
3.
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE H.K.RATHOD
Date
: 22/09/2010
ORAL
ORDER
1. Heard
learned Senior Advocate Mr.Percy Kavina with learned advocate
Mr.Devang Vyas on behalf of petitioner.
2. In
present petition, petitioner has challenged order dated 6.9.2010
passed by respondent Nos.1 and 2 in review application of petitioner.
3. Learned
Senior Advocate Mr.Kavina submitted this review application is
required to be decided by Bombay authority as per letter dated
11.12.2009 incorporated by this Court in order dated 8.7.2010 in SCA
No.7556 of 2010. He also submitted that it was directed to Director
of Marketing by Director (Marketing) Govt. of India, Ministry of
Petroleum and Natural Gas to consider request made by petitioner
against cancellation of candidature and his empanelment for above
mentioned LPG location. Therefore, review petition was preferred by
petitioner on 7.12.2009 and he also personally appeared before Joint
Secretary (Marketing) and explained the facts relating to his
experience. Therefore, decision which has been taken by DGM (LPG) NWZ
having no jurisdiction or being unauthorizedly exercising power while
rejecting review application preferred by petitioner.
4. I
have considered aforesaid contention made by learned Senior Advocate
Mr.Kavina. It is necessary to note that when review petition was
heard by respondent authorities in Zonal Office, Karakka Building,
Ashram Road, Ahmedabad , at that occasion, no such contention has
been raised by petitioner before authority that this review petition
is required to be decided by Bombay people as per letter dated
11.12.2009 as referred above. Therefore, now this contention cannot
be permitted to be raised before this Court first time which was not
raised before reviewing authority.
5. The
contention raised by learned Senior Advocate Mr.Kavina is that
hearing of review petition filed by petitioner is contrary to letter
dated 11.12.2009 cannot be accepted simply on the ground that as and
when petitioner was called by Ahmedabad office by letter dated
23.7.2010 but, he requested for some time by an application dated
4.8.2010 and thereafter, matter was fixed and re-scheduled on
18.8.2010 and thereafter, matter was heard by Zonal Office, Ahmedabad
when petitioner was personally present before Senior Regional
Manager, Gandhinagar (Retail) of HPCL. The copy of minutes of hearing
dated 18.10.2010 is also attached with order passed by reviewing
authority. At that time, no objection raised by petitioner.
Therefore, this contention cannot be accepted and hence, rejected.
6. Learned
Senior Advocate Mr.Kavina also raised two contentions before this
Court; one is in respect to income and another is in respect to
experience. He also referred to Page-61 where certificate has been
given by Chartered Accountant dated 4.1.2010 in favour of present
petitioner which was subsequent to the application form made by
petitioner. Similarly, experience certificate dated 10.12.2009 which
is at page-32 which suggests that whatever record of co-operative
society or institution is considered to be a correct document.
Therefore, decision which has been taken by reviewing authority that
certificate is wrong because date in experience certificate has been
wrongly mentioned as ‘15.1.2000’. But in fact, according to
petitioner, correct date of certificate is ‘29.10.2007’. He also
submitted that in respect to page-33, a certificate given by
Ex-Administrator that petitioner was in service as an employee of
Mandli for the period from 1.11.1998 to 31.12.1999 as an non-salary
employee means petitioner was not receiving salary for aforesaid
period from Mandli. He also submitted that reviewing authority has
not examined the real fact / merits whether petitioner having actual
experience or not, that aspect has been totally ignored by respondent
authorities. The certificate issued by society it is found from the
resolution book of society which has not been checked for coming to
conclusion that claim made by petitioner is found to be false or
there is no positive finding given by respondent that certificate is
not genuine but false certificate. In respect to income, learned
Senior Advocate Mr.Kavina has relied upon page-36 which certificate
was given by Mamlatdar, Bhiloda where whatever the income shown in
certificate which are attached to letter dated 24.8.2009 is found to
be correct. But what income, that fact is not mentioned in aforesaid
letter dated 26.8.2009 (Page-36). Learned Senior Advocate Mr.Kavina
also emphasized that facts which are irrelevant have been considered
against petitioner and authority has mis-read documents which are
relied upon by petitioner and completely ignored administrative
letter and record of co-operative society which is to be considered
as final, same has not been considered and therefore, it amounts to
mis-interpretation of relevant documents and relevant material which
has not been properly appreciated and considered by respondent
authorities. Therefore, finding which has been given by respondent
authorities is baseless and perverse and contrary to record.
Therefore, according to his submissions, interference is required by
this Court because review petition is not properly examined by
respondent authorities.
7. I
have considered submissions made by learned Senior Advocate Mr.Kavina
and also perused order passed by respondent authorities dated
6.9.2010 (Page-19 to 24) and also perused the relevant record which
is annexed to present petition. The respondent authorities has
rightly considered the question as to whether on the date of
application made by petitioner i.e. 29.10.2007, whatever details have
been given and documents supplied by petitioner in respect to
experience and income, are correct or not and whether it amounts to
giving wrong information / mis-representation and suppression of
facts made by petitioner while giving application for LPG
distributorship. In respect to income, Mamlatdar, Bhiloda by letter
dated 27.8.2009 confirmed that income from agriculture of petitioner
was Rs.2.5 lacs, Rs.50,000/- from milk products and 2 lacs from
practice as advocate. Therefore, during verification it has been
found by respondent that petitioner has given false income and income
of petitioner of Rs. 5 lacs is not only through the source of
agriculture. In reply given by petitioner dated 9.11.2009
(Annexure-7), according to petitioner, his income is Rs.5,00,093/-
from the agriculture income and Rs.80,985/- as income from business
and profession. Therefore, petitioner has given false declaration in
respect to income. The petitioner has relied upon total 10 documents
in support of review application dated 7.12.2009 which has been
considered by respondent authorities and thereafter, it has been
decided on the basis of documents which are produced by petitioner
and found from record and come to conclusion that in respect to
experience and income, whatever material has been placed on record by
petitioner at the relevant time when the application was made, that
has been found to be false, incorrect and not genuine because
relevance is that on the date of filing application, whatever
material / details and documents produced by petitioner are only
required to be considered while deciding review application.
Subsequently, documents in support of say of petitioner is produced,
that documents are considered to be totally irrelevant and not
required to be considered because these documents have been produced
on record subsequent to the application made by petitioner and after
cancellation of candidature of petitioner. This aspect in detail
considered by respondent authorities and therefore, by letter dated
21.11.2009 cancellation of candidature of petitioner is found to be
correct by respondent authorities while deciding review application
dated 7.12.2009 and heard on 18.8.2010.
8. In
light of this background, finding which has been given in respect to
10 annexures submitted by petitioner on 18.8.2010 in support of
review application dated 7.12.2009 which reasoning are quoted as
under :
1) EXPERIENCE
CERTIFICATE PRODUCED BY PETITIONER
A) We
find that under column no 12 of the application dated 29.10.2007, you
have stated that you had worked in the Sarvodaya Piyat Sahkari
Mandali Ltd Ransan Teh:Idar, Dist:Sabarkantha for the period
1.11.1998 to 31.12.1999. You have also attached the Experience
Certificate dated 15.1.2000 issued by the Shri Himmat Singh Bhatti as
Chairman of the society. This Experience Certificate dated 15.1.2000
was submitted by you together with Dealer Selection application and
you have claimed that you were working in the Sarvodaya Piyat Sahkari
Mandali Ltd Ranasan Teh:Idar, Dist:Sabarkantha as Supervisor for the
period 1.11.1998 to 31.12.1999 for sale of fertilizer/insecticide or
agriculture produce. Vide letter dated. 24.8.2009, the District
Registrar, Co-op Societies, Himatnagar confirmed that during the
period when the experience certificate was shown as issued, there was
no Chairman of the said society. In fact, admittedly, during the
period 1.6.99 to 30.4.2001, the Society was under administration of
the
Administrator appointed by the Registrar of Co-op Societies. When we
have issued Show Cause Notice bearing GLR:AS;LPG dated 22/9/2009
interalia pointing out the above, vide reply dated 9/11/2009, you
have taken the stand that there appears
to be typographical error in the date of experience certificate and
you have claimed that the Experience Certificate was issued on
27/10/2007 by the Society and without verifying the date on the
certificate, the same was enclosed together with the Dealership
Selection Application. However, in your Review Application dated
7/12/2009, you have taken the stand that by typographical error, the
date in the experience certificate was mentioned as 15/1/2000 instead
of 27/10/2007. Thus, we find that there is total change in the date
of experience certificate. The above said averment of mistake in the
date of experience certificate confirms that you are making repeated
futile attempts to circumvent the false experience certificate
submitted by you showing the date as 15.1.2000 and which issued by
chairman of the Society. In fact, as on 15/1/2000 the Society was
under the control of the Administrator.
B) As
per the Experience Certificate dated 15.1.2000, you were working in
the Sarvodaya Piyat Sahkari Mandali Ltd Ranasan Teh:Idar,
Dist:Sabarkantha as Supervisor for the period 1.11.1998 to 31.12.1999
for sale of fertilizer/insecticide or agricultural produce. As
already stated admittedly, during the period 1.6.99 to 30.4.2001, the
Society was under administration of the Administration appointed by
the Registrar of Co-op Societies. Vide letter dated 24.8.2009 issued
by the Dist. Registrar confirms that as per the Statement of Accounts
of the Society, the Society has not carried out any activity relating
to sales or purchase of fertilizers/insecticides or agricultural
produce. The said letter 24.8.2009 also confirms that there is no
record about the presence of your duties at the society as salaried
or non-salaried employee of the society. Thus, your claim that you
have worked during the period 1/11/98 to 31/12/99 (at least during
the Period of Administration i.e. 1/6/99 to 31/12/99) and obtained
experience in direct sale/home delivered product etc are false.
C) As
per the Dealership Selection Guidelines for the purpose of getting
the marks under the head of Experience the candidate should have
salary slip to support the Experience certificate. You have stated
and declared in Dealership Selection Application that you have worked
during the period 1/11/98 to 31/12/99 in direct sale/home delivered
products. Together with Dealership Selection Application dated
29/10/2007, you have also submitted Appointment letter dated 15/10/98
issued by the Society, interlia stating the salary of Rs.1500/- per
month. When Show Cause Notice letter bearing no.GLR/AS/LPG dated
22/9/2009 was issued to you, in order to circumvent the false
declaration, you have taken the contrary stand vide your reply dated
9/11/09 and Review Application that 7/12/2009 that you have worked as
honorary/voluntarily basis in the Society.
Thus,
it has come out clearly that you have provided false Experience
Certificate together with Dealership Selection Application stating
that you have worked as Supervisor of the Society for the period
1/11/98 to 31/12/1999 for sale of fertilizer/insecticide or
agricultural produce.
B) INCOME
CERTIFICATE:-
As
per your the Column No.14 and Annx (duly notorised, stamped and
signed) of your application dated 29.10.2007, you have stated total
income for year 2006-07 as 5 Lakhs.
During
the personal hearing held on 18/8/10, under Annex. 7 of your letter
dated 18/8/10, you have produced documents in respect of your income
for the financial year 2006/07. Though for the subject Dealership
Selection, the applicable financial year was 2006/07, you have
produced Income Certificate dated 4/1/2010 from M/s K.K.Patel and
Associates, Chartered Accountants, Himatnagar for the period ended
31/3/2007, Income tax return submitted in Jan 2010 in respect of
financial year 2006/07. Thus, we find that these certificates are
originated much after the cancellation of the candidature/empanelment
vide letter dated 21/11/2009.
As
given in our letter bearing no. GLR:AS:LPG dated 21/11/2009, vide
letter dated 21.8.2009, we have requested for the relevant details
from Mamlatdar Nagrik Seva Kendra, Bhiloda attaching the income
certificate issued by the Naib Mamlatdar, Bhiloda. Vide letter dated
27.8.2009 the Mamlatdar, Bhiloda confirmed that you have income from
Agriculture is Rs.2.5 Lakhs, Rs.50,000 from Milk products and 2 Lakhs
from practice as Advocate. Hence, during the verification it has
been found that you have given false income and your income of Rs.5
Lakhs is not only through the source of Agriculture.
In
your reply dated 9.11.2009 (under Annex. 7) you have stated that your
income is Rs.5,00,930/- from the agricultural Income and Rs.80985/-
as income from business and profession. We find that the income from
business and profession for Rs.80985/- is not shown at the time of
application. Thus, on this count also you have given false income
declaration.
Our
review of the documents and facts reconfirms that you given false
statement/declaration in the application and submitted false
affidavit in respect of your annual income.
View
above, on examination of your Review Application dated 7/12/2009,
Application dated 18/8/10 and annexures thereof and all other
relevant documents, we find that there is no reason to deviate from
earlier finding and cancellation of candidature and empanelment of
candidature of you, vide letter bearing no.GLR:AS:LPG dated
21/11/2009. It is reconfirmed that that you have submitted false
documents and submitted false declarations in your above said
application dated 29.10.2007 in respect of experience and income for
the LPG Dealership at Bhiloda. Under Sr. No 16 and 17 of the Dealer
Selection application dated 29-10-2007, you have given an undertaking
that any wrong information/misrepresentation/suppression of facts
would make you ineligible for the LPG distributorship.
Under
above facts and circumstances, we find that cancellation of your
candidature and empanelment vide letter bearing no.GLR/AS/LPG dated
21/11/2009 stands valid.
9. I
have considered reasoning given by respondent authorities and also
considered correct details and documents which were not supplied by
petitioner at the time when application dated 29.10.2007 was made to
respondent. In such circumstances, an identical question has been
examined recently by Apex Court in case of Smt.Monika Gupta v. Union
of India & Others. Reported in 2010 AIR SCW 4296 where lady has
been considered for appointment of LPG distributorship and selection
made by authority on the basis of brochure providing that details
given with application along with application alone would be
considered and at the relevant time, respondent did not annex any
document along with application form to show that land was available
for godown or showroom necessary for operating LPG distributorship.
The documents submitted subsequently showing purchase of land by her
must have to be ignored and it has been held that selection committee
did not commit any error by awarding ‘zero’ marks to her under
heading ‘capability to provide land and infrastructure of godown and
showroom’. The relevant observations of aforesaid decision are in
Para.10, 11, 12 and 17 which are quoted as under :
10.
We have considered the respective submissions and carefully scanned
the records including the files made available by the learned
Solicitor General, which contain the applications and documents of
the appellant and respondent No.4.
11. Paragraphs
8 and 13 of the brochure issued by respondent No.2, which have
bearing on the decision of this appeal are as under:
8.
CONSTRUCTION OF GODOWN/SHOWROOM ON THE SITE AS MENTIONED IN
APPLICATION FORM
The
applicant who readily has suitable godown/land for construction of
godown for storage filled LPG cylinders and LPG cylinders and
shop/land for construction of shop for HP GAS showroom for setting up
of HP GAS Distributorship or have a firm commitment from the land
owner for purchase/lease or can arrange it are awarded marks. The
details given along with the application alone will be considered for
this purpose and the applicant will not be given any opportunity to
offer any other land subsequently even at the time of interview. For
this purpose, the land owned by the family applicant subject to
attaching the consent of the concerned family members. LPG will
decide the suitability of the land on the basis of the documents
submitted along with the application. However, after selection of the
applicant, physical verification of the godown land/godown as well as
the showroom will be undertaken. In the event it is found that there
is variance in the details submitted with the application form and or
the plot is not found suitable for construction of godown or the
godown is not approved by CCOE the allotment of the distributorship
will stand automatically cancelled.
If
an applicant, after selection of the above basis, is unable to
available make godown duly approved by the Chief Controller of
Explosives on the land/godown indicated in the application and/or
showroom as per the oil company s standard layout on the land/shop
indicated in the application, then the allotment of HP GAS
Distributorship made to the applicant will automatically stand
cancelled.
13. NORMS
FOR EVALUATING THE CANDIDATES
The
LPG distributor will be selected on the basis of evaluation of all
eligible applicants on the following parameters.
a)
Capability to provide infrastructure* 35 marks
b)
Capability to provide finance* 35 marks
c) Educational
qualifications** 15 marks
d. Age**
4 marks
e.
Experience 4 marks
f.
Business ability/acumen 5 marks
g.
Personality** 2 marks
Total
marks 100
The
evaluation on the parameters a to d above will be done on the basis
of the information given in the application. The evaluation on the
parameter e, e and g will be done based on the interview.
12. We
shall decide this appeal by assuming that the applications of all the
candidates had been received by the competent authority before the
last date because it is not the case of either party that the
applications were submitted by the candidates after the last date
fixed for receipt thereof I.e. 9.3.2004. In clauses (a) and (b) of
paragraph 17 of the application form, the candidates were required to
indicate in yes/no, the availability of land/plot for godown and the
showroom. While the appellant had scored out `No in both the
clauses and thereby indicated that land was available for godown and
she also had a showroom, respondent No.4 did not score out `Yes or
`No . This is sufficient to give rise to a presumption that the
date on which respondent No.4 is said to have submitted the
application, she did not have land for godown or showroom. It is
borne out from the files produced by the learned Solicitor General
that along with her application form, the appellant had annexed
various documents showing her financial status and copies of the sale
deeds and site plans showing the availability of land for godown and
showroom. As against this, respondent No.4 did not annex any document
along with the application form to show that land was available for
godown or showroom. Later on, she is said to have submitted two
affidavits which are shown to have been notarized on 8.3.2004. The
stamp papers on which the affidavits were prepared bear the dates of
purchase as 4.3.2004 and 5.3.2004. One of these affidavits is of
respondent No.4 herself. The other is the affidavit of Ramnath son of
Shri Janki Singh Yadav resident of Jaisinghpur, Tehsil Kayamganj,
District Farrukhabad, who is said to have agreed to provide his shop
for the purpose of showroom to respondent No.4 in case she was
selected for LPG distributorship. The file of respondent No.4 also
contains photostat copy of the sale deed executed by Shri Shivnath
Singh son of late Shri Makrant Singh, resident of village Bhatasa
Pargana Shamshabad, West Tehsil Kayamganj, in favour of Rajesh Kumar
Gangwar (husband of respondent No.4). The sale deed is shown to
have been presented before Sub-Registrar, Kayamganj between 2 to 3
p.m. on 9.3.2004 and was registered on the same day. However, the two
affidavits and the photostat copy of the sale deed do not contain any
endorsement showing the date of receipt.
17.
From the above analysis of the application forms and documents
filed by respondent No.4, it is clear that the Selection Committee
did not commit any error by awarding `zero’ marks to her under the
heading “Capability to provide land and infrastructure for
godown and showroom”. As a corollary, we hold that the decision
of respondent No.3 to cancel the panel/merit list on the ground that
the Selection Committee had erred in not awarding 30 marks to
respondent No.4 under the heading `infrastructure’ was legally
unsustainable. Unfortunately, the Division Bench of the High Court
failed to notice that in para 17 of the application form, respondent
No.4 had not indicated the availability of land for godown and/or
showroom and that in view of the language of para 8 of the brochure,
the Selection Committee had no option but to ignore affidavit dated
8.3.2004 of Ramnath son of Shri Janki Singh and copy of sale deed
dated 9.3.2004 executed by Shri Shivnath Singh in favour of Shri
Rajesh Kumar Gangwar (husband of respondent No.4) for the purpose of
awarding marks. We have no doubt that if the Division Bench had
summoned the relevant records and perused the same, it would have
discovered that the application of respondent No.4 was laconic in
material respects and the Selection Committee had rightly awarded
zero marks to her under the heading `infrastructure’. In any
case, we are convinced that respondent No.3 committed serious error
by recording a finding that respondent No.4 was entitled to 30 marks
under the heading `infrastructure’.
10. In
view of aforesaid law laid down by Supreme Court and while
considering reasoning given by respondent reviewing authority,
the facts which comes on record that initial details and documents
which have been supplied by petitioner is found to be incorrect and
whatever subsequent material and documents produced by petitioner,
has been rightly not considered by respondent authorities because it
is irrelevant which were not attached to original application dated
29.10.2007 made by petitioner. Therefore, subsequent documents which
have been relied by petitioner cannot be considered and on that
basis, details and documents which have been supplied in original
dealer selection application dated 29.10.2007, Sr. Nos.16 and 17, an
undertaking which has been given to the effect that petitioner will
not supply wrong information/mis-representation/ suppression of facts
which would make him ineligble for LPG distributorship. Therefore,
respondent authorities has rightly come to conclusion while deciding
review application that documents which are produced on record on
18.8.2010 and facts are confirms that petitioner has given false
statement / declaration in the application and also submitted false
affidavit in respect to annual income. Similarly, in respect to
experience also, considering experience certificate together with
dealership selection application where petitioner has stated that he
had worked as a supervisor of society for the period from 1.11.1998
to 31.12.1999 for sale of fertilizer insecticides or agriculture
produce is found to be false after proper scrutiny by respondent
authorities. Therefore, in respect to experience, a contradictory
stand taken by petitioner before respondent authorities which
ultimately come to conclusion that petitioner has given wrong
information / mis-representation / suppression of fact supplied to
respondents at the time when application for dealer selection made on
29.10.2007 which is found to be contrary to undertaking given at Sr.
Nos.16 and 17 of dealer selection application. Therefore, contentions
raised by learned Senior Advocate Mr.Kavina cannot be accepted. The
finding of fact which has been found from record by respondent
authorities is considered to be a legal and valid finding, based on
record and it cannot be said that finding given by respondent
authorities is baseless and perverse. This Court is having limited
jurisdiction to interfere with such administrative order because this
Court has to examine only decision making process and not the
decision.
11. The
view taken by Apex Court in case of Union of India and Anr. v.
K.G.Soni, reported in (2006) 6 SCC 794 in Para.13 and 14, which is
quoted as under :
13. In
Union of India and Anr. v. G. Ganayutham (1997 [7] SCC 463), this
Court summed up the position relating to proportionality in
paragraphs 31 and 32, which read as follows:
31. The
current position of proportionality in administrative law in England
and India can be summarized as follows:
(1) To
judge the validity of any administrative order or statutory
discretion, normally the Wednesbury test is to be applied to find out
if the decision was illegal or suffered from procedural improprieties
or was one which no sensible decision-maker could, on the material
before him and within the framework of the law, have arrived at. The
court would consider whether relevant matters had not been taken into
account or whether irrelevant matters had been taken into account or
whether the action was not bona fide. The court would also consider
whether the decision was absurd or perverse. The court would not
however go into the correctness of the choice made by the
administrator amongst the various alternatives open to him. Nor
could the court substitute its decision to that of the administrator.
This
is the Wednesbury (1948 1 KB 223) test.
(2) The
court would not interfere with the administrator s decision unless
it was illegal or suffered from procedural impropriety or was
irrational in the sense that it was in outrageous defiance of logic
or moral standards. The possibility of other tests, including
proportionality being brought into English administrative law in
future is not ruled out. These are the CCSU (1985 AC 374)
principles.
(3)(a)
As per Bugdaycay (1987 AC 514), Brind (1991 (1) AC 696) and Smith
(1996 (1) All ER 257) as long as the Convention is not incorporated
into English law, the English courts merely exercise a secondary
judgment to find out if the decision-maker could have, on the
material before him, arrived at the primary judgment in the manner he
has done.
(3)(b)
If the Convention is incorporated in England making available the
principle of proportionality, then the English courts will render
primary judgment on the validity of the
administrative
action and find out if the restriction is disproportionate or
excessive or is not based upon a fair balancing of the fundamental
freedom and the need for the restriction thereupon.
(4)(a)
The position in our country, in administrative law, where no
fundamental freedoms as aforesaid are involved, is that the
courts/tribunals will only play a secondary role while the primary
judgment as to reasonableness will remain with the executive or
administrative authority. The secondary judgment of the court is to
be based on Wednesbury and CCSU principles as stated by Lord Greene
and Lord Diplock respectively to find if the executive or
administrative authority has reasonably arrived at his decision as
the primary authority.
(4)(b)
Whether in the case of administrative or executive action affecting
fundamental freedoms, the courts in our country will apply the
principle of proportionality and assume a primary role, is left
open, to be decided in an appropriate case where such action is
alleged to offend fundamental freedoms. It will be then necessary to
decide whether the courts will have a primary role only if the
freedoms under Articles 19, 21 etc. are involved and not for Article
14.
14. The
common thread running through in all these decisions is that the
Court should not interfere with the administrator s decision unless
it was illogical or suffers from procedural impropriety or was
shocking to the conscience of the Court, in the sense that it was in
defiance of logic or moral standards. In view of what has been stated
in the Wednesbury s case (supra) the Court would not go into the
correctness of the choice made by the administrator open to him and
the Court should not substitute its decision to that of the
administrator. The scope of judicial review is limited to the
deficiency in decision-making process and not the decision.
12. Therefore,
looking to entire reasoning given by reviewing authority in order
dated 6.9.2010, according to my opinion, respondent authorities has
not committed any error which requires interference by this Court.
Therefore, the order passed by respondent authorities cannot be
considered to be arbitrary, unreasonable and violative of Article 14
of the Constitution of India. Hence, there is no substance in present
petition. Accordingly, present petition is dismissed.
(H.K.RATHOD,J.)
(vipul)
Top