{"id":230407,"date":"2010-09-22T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-09-21T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/randhirsinh-vs-hindustan-on-22-september-2010"},"modified":"2018-09-02T18:02:23","modified_gmt":"2018-09-02T12:32:23","slug":"randhirsinh-vs-hindustan-on-22-september-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/randhirsinh-vs-hindustan-on-22-september-2010","title":{"rendered":"Randhirsinh vs Hindustan on 22 September, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Randhirsinh vs Hindustan on 22 September, 2010<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: H.K.Rathod,&amp;Nbsp;<\/div>\n<pre>   Gujarat High Court Case Information System \n\n  \n  \n    \n\n \n \n    \t      \n         \n\t    \n\t\t   Print\n\t\t\t\t          \n\n  \n\n\n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t\n\n\n \n\n\n\t \n\nSCA\/12272\/2010\t 19\/ 19\tORDER \n \n \n\n\t\n\n \n\nIN\nTHE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\nSPECIAL\nCIVIL APPLICATION No. 12272 of 2010\n \n\n \n \n=========================================================\n\n \n\nRANDHIRSINH\nJASVANTSINH BHATI - Petitioner(s)\n \n\nVersus\n \n\nHINDUSTAN\nPETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD &amp; 2 - Respondent(s)\n \n\n=========================================================\n \nAppearance\n: \nMR\nPERCY KAVINA WITH MR DEVANG VYAS\nfor\nPetitioner(s) : 1, \nNone for Respondent(s) : 1 -\n3. \n=========================================================\n\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nCORAM\n\t\t\t: \n\t\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nHONOURABLE\n\t\t\tMR.JUSTICE H.K.RATHOD\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n \n \n\n\n \n\nDate\n: 22\/09\/2010 \n\n \n\n \n \nORAL\nORDER<\/pre>\n<p>1.\tHeard<br \/>\nlearned Senior Advocate Mr.Percy Kavina with learned advocate<br \/>\nMr.Devang Vyas on behalf of petitioner.\n<\/p>\n<p>2.\tIn<br \/>\npresent petition, petitioner has challenged order dated 6.9.2010<br \/>\npassed by respondent Nos.1 and 2 in review application of petitioner.\n<\/p>\n<p>3.\tLearned<br \/>\nSenior Advocate Mr.Kavina submitted this review application is<br \/>\nrequired to be decided by Bombay authority as per letter dated<br \/>\n11.12.2009 incorporated by this Court in order dated 8.7.2010 in SCA<br \/>\nNo.7556 of 2010. He also submitted that it was directed to Director<br \/>\nof Marketing by Director (Marketing) Govt. of India, Ministry of<br \/>\nPetroleum and Natural Gas to consider request made by petitioner<br \/>\nagainst cancellation of candidature and his empanelment for above<br \/>\nmentioned LPG location. Therefore, review petition was preferred by<br \/>\npetitioner on 7.12.2009 and he also personally appeared before Joint<br \/>\nSecretary (Marketing) and explained the facts relating to his<br \/>\nexperience. Therefore, decision which has been taken by DGM (LPG) NWZ<br \/>\nhaving no jurisdiction or being unauthorizedly exercising power while<br \/>\nrejecting review application preferred by petitioner.\n<\/p>\n<p>4.\tI<br \/>\nhave considered aforesaid contention made by learned Senior Advocate<br \/>\nMr.Kavina. It is necessary to note that when review petition was<br \/>\nheard by respondent authorities in Zonal Office, Karakka Building,<br \/>\nAshram Road, Ahmedabad , at that occasion, no such contention has<br \/>\nbeen raised by petitioner before authority that this review petition<br \/>\nis required to be decided by Bombay people as per letter dated<br \/>\n11.12.2009 as referred above. Therefore, now this contention cannot<br \/>\nbe permitted to be raised before this Court first time which was not<br \/>\nraised before reviewing authority.\n<\/p>\n<p>5.\tThe<br \/>\ncontention raised by learned Senior Advocate  Mr.Kavina is that<br \/>\nhearing of review petition filed by petitioner is contrary to letter<br \/>\ndated 11.12.2009 cannot be accepted simply on the ground that as and<br \/>\nwhen petitioner was called by Ahmedabad office by letter dated<br \/>\n23.7.2010 but, he requested for some time by an application dated<br \/>\n4.8.2010 and thereafter, matter was fixed and re-scheduled on<br \/>\n18.8.2010 and thereafter, matter was heard by Zonal Office, Ahmedabad<br \/>\nwhen petitioner was personally present before Senior Regional<br \/>\nManager, Gandhinagar (Retail) of HPCL. The copy of minutes of hearing<br \/>\ndated 18.10.2010 is also attached with order passed by reviewing<br \/>\nauthority. At that time, no objection raised by petitioner.<br \/>\nTherefore, this contention cannot be accepted and hence, rejected.\n<\/p>\n<p>6.\tLearned<br \/>\nSenior Advocate Mr.Kavina also raised two contentions before this<br \/>\nCourt; one is in respect to income and another is in respect to<br \/>\nexperience. He also referred to Page-61 where certificate has been<br \/>\ngiven by Chartered Accountant dated 4.1.2010 in favour of present<br \/>\npetitioner which was subsequent to the application form made by<br \/>\npetitioner. Similarly, experience certificate dated 10.12.2009 which<br \/>\nis at page-32 which suggests that whatever record of co-operative<br \/>\nsociety or institution is considered to be a correct document.<br \/>\nTherefore, decision which has been taken by reviewing authority that<br \/>\ncertificate is wrong because date in experience certificate has been<br \/>\nwrongly mentioned as &#8216;15.1.2000&#8217;. But in fact, according to<br \/>\npetitioner, correct date of certificate is &#8216;29.10.2007&#8217;. He also<br \/>\nsubmitted that in respect to page-33, a certificate given by<br \/>\nEx-Administrator that petitioner was in service as an employee of<br \/>\nMandli for the period from 1.11.1998 to 31.12.1999 as an non-salary<br \/>\nemployee means petitioner was not receiving salary for  aforesaid<br \/>\nperiod from Mandli. He also submitted that reviewing authority has<br \/>\nnot examined the real fact \/ merits whether petitioner having actual<br \/>\nexperience or not, that aspect has been totally ignored by respondent<br \/>\nauthorities. The certificate issued by society it is found from the<br \/>\nresolution book of society which has not been checked for coming to<br \/>\nconclusion that claim made by petitioner is found to be false or<br \/>\nthere is no positive finding given by respondent that certificate is<br \/>\nnot genuine but false certificate. In respect to income, learned<br \/>\nSenior Advocate Mr.Kavina has relied upon page-36 which certificate<br \/>\nwas given by Mamlatdar, Bhiloda where whatever the income shown in<br \/>\ncertificate which are attached to letter dated 24.8.2009 is found to<br \/>\nbe correct. But what income, that fact is not mentioned in aforesaid<br \/>\nletter dated 26.8.2009 (Page-36). Learned Senior Advocate  Mr.Kavina<br \/>\nalso emphasized that facts which are irrelevant have been considered<br \/>\nagainst petitioner and authority has mis-read documents which are<br \/>\nrelied upon by petitioner and completely ignored administrative<br \/>\nletter and record of co-operative society which is to be considered<br \/>\nas final, same has not been considered and therefore, it amounts to<br \/>\nmis-interpretation of relevant documents and relevant material which<br \/>\nhas not been properly appreciated and considered by respondent<br \/>\nauthorities. Therefore, finding which has been given by respondent<br \/>\nauthorities is baseless and perverse and contrary to record.<br \/>\nTherefore, according to his submissions, interference is required by<br \/>\nthis Court because review  petition is not properly examined by<br \/>\nrespondent authorities.\n<\/p>\n<p>7.\tI<br \/>\nhave considered submissions made by learned Senior Advocate Mr.Kavina<br \/>\nand also perused order passed by respondent authorities dated<br \/>\n6.9.2010 (Page-19 to 24) and also perused the relevant record which<br \/>\nis annexed to present petition.  The respondent authorities has<br \/>\nrightly considered the question as to whether on the date of<br \/>\napplication made by petitioner i.e. 29.10.2007, whatever details have<br \/>\nbeen given and documents supplied by petitioner in respect to<br \/>\nexperience and income, are correct or not and whether it amounts to<br \/>\ngiving wrong information \/ mis-representation and suppression of<br \/>\nfacts made by petitioner while giving application for LPG<br \/>\ndistributorship. In respect to income, Mamlatdar, Bhiloda by letter<br \/>\ndated 27.8.2009 confirmed that income from agriculture of petitioner<br \/>\nwas Rs.2.5 lacs, Rs.50,000\/- from milk products and 2 lacs from<br \/>\npractice as advocate. Therefore, during verification it has been<br \/>\nfound by respondent that petitioner has given false income and income<br \/>\nof petitioner of Rs. 5 lacs is not only through the source of<br \/>\nagriculture. In reply given by petitioner dated 9.11.2009<br \/>\n(Annexure-7), according to petitioner, his income is Rs.5,00,093\/-<br \/>\nfrom the agriculture income and Rs.80,985\/- as income from business<br \/>\nand profession. Therefore, petitioner has given false declaration in<br \/>\nrespect to income. The petitioner has relied upon total 10 documents<br \/>\nin support of review application dated 7.12.2009 which has been<br \/>\nconsidered by respondent authorities and thereafter, it has been<br \/>\ndecided on the basis of documents which are produced by petitioner<br \/>\nand found from record and come to conclusion that in respect to<br \/>\nexperience and income, whatever material has been placed on record by<br \/>\npetitioner at the relevant time when the application was made, that<br \/>\nhas been found to be false, incorrect and not genuine because<br \/>\nrelevance is that on the date of filing application, whatever<br \/>\nmaterial \/ details and documents produced by petitioner are only<br \/>\nrequired to be considered while deciding review application.<br \/>\nSubsequently,  documents in support of say of petitioner is produced,<br \/>\nthat documents are considered to be totally irrelevant and not<br \/>\nrequired to be considered because these documents have been produced<br \/>\non record subsequent to the application made by petitioner and after<br \/>\ncancellation of candidature of petitioner. This aspect in detail<br \/>\nconsidered by respondent authorities and therefore, by letter dated<br \/>\n21.11.2009 cancellation of candidature of petitioner is found to be<br \/>\ncorrect by respondent authorities while deciding review application<br \/>\ndated 7.12.2009 and heard on 18.8.2010.\n<\/p>\n<p>8.\tIn<br \/>\nlight of this background, finding which has been given in respect to<br \/>\n10 annexures submitted by petitioner on 18.8.2010 in support of<br \/>\nreview application dated 7.12.2009 which reasoning are quoted as<br \/>\nunder :\n<\/p>\n<p> 1)\t EXPERIENCE<br \/>\n CERTIFICATE PRODUCED BY PETITIONER<\/p>\n<p>A)\tWe<br \/>\nfind that under column no 12 of the application dated 29.10.2007, you<br \/>\nhave stated that you had worked in the Sarvodaya Piyat Sahkari<br \/>\nMandali Ltd Ransan Teh:Idar, Dist:Sabarkantha for the period<br \/>\n1.11.1998 to 31.12.1999.  You have also attached the Experience<br \/>\nCertificate dated 15.1.2000 issued by the Shri Himmat Singh Bhatti as<br \/>\nChairman of the society.  This Experience Certificate dated 15.1.2000<br \/>\nwas submitted by you together with Dealer Selection application and<br \/>\nyou have claimed that you were working in the Sarvodaya Piyat Sahkari<br \/>\nMandali Ltd Ranasan Teh:Idar, Dist:Sabarkantha as  Supervisor for the<br \/>\nperiod 1.11.1998 to 31.12.1999 for sale of fertilizer\/insecticide or<br \/>\nagriculture produce.  Vide letter dated. 24.8.2009, the District<br \/>\nRegistrar, Co-op Societies, Himatnagar confirmed that during the<br \/>\nperiod when the experience certificate was shown as issued, there was<br \/>\nno Chairman of the said society.  In fact, admittedly, during the<br \/>\nperiod 1.6.99 to 30.4.2001, the Society was under administration of<br \/>\nthe<br \/>\nAdministrator appointed by the Registrar of Co-op Societies.  When we<br \/>\nhave issued Show Cause Notice bearing GLR:AS;LPG dated 22\/9\/2009<br \/>\ninteralia pointing out the above, vide reply dated 9\/11\/2009, you<br \/>\nhave taken the stand that there appears<br \/>\nto be typographical error in the date of experience certificate and<br \/>\nyou have claimed that the Experience Certificate was issued on<br \/>\n27\/10\/2007 by the Society and without verifying the date on the<br \/>\ncertificate, the same was enclosed together with the Dealership<br \/>\nSelection Application.  However, in your Review Application dated<br \/>\n7\/12\/2009, you have taken the stand that by typographical error, the<br \/>\ndate in the experience certificate was mentioned as 15\/1\/2000 instead<br \/>\nof 27\/10\/2007.  Thus, we find that there is total change in the date<br \/>\nof experience certificate.  The above said averment of mistake in the<br \/>\ndate of experience certificate confirms that you are making repeated<br \/>\nfutile attempts to circumvent the false experience certificate<br \/>\nsubmitted by you showing the date as 15.1.2000 and which issued by<br \/>\nchairman of the Society.  In fact, as on 15\/1\/2000 the Society was<br \/>\nunder the control of the Administrator.\n<\/p>\n<p>B)\tAs<br \/>\nper the Experience Certificate dated 15.1.2000, you were working in<br \/>\nthe Sarvodaya Piyat Sahkari Mandali Ltd Ranasan Teh:Idar,<br \/>\nDist:Sabarkantha as Supervisor for the period 1.11.1998 to 31.12.1999<br \/>\nfor sale of fertilizer\/insecticide or agricultural produce.  As<br \/>\nalready stated admittedly, during the period 1.6.99 to 30.4.2001, the<br \/>\nSociety was under administration of the Administration appointed by<br \/>\nthe Registrar of Co-op Societies.  Vide letter dated 24.8.2009 issued<br \/>\nby the Dist. Registrar confirms that as per the Statement of Accounts<br \/>\nof the Society, the Society has not carried out any activity relating<br \/>\nto sales or purchase of fertilizers\/insecticides or agricultural<br \/>\nproduce.  The said letter 24.8.2009 also confirms that there is no<br \/>\nrecord about the presence of your duties at the society as salaried<br \/>\nor non-salaried employee of the society.  Thus, your claim that you<br \/>\nhave worked during the period 1\/11\/98 to 31\/12\/99 (at least during<br \/>\nthe Period of Administration i.e. 1\/6\/99 to 31\/12\/99) and obtained<br \/>\nexperience in direct sale\/home delivered product etc are false.\n<\/p>\n<p>C)\tAs<br \/>\nper the Dealership Selection Guidelines for the purpose of getting<br \/>\nthe marks under the head of Experience the candidate should have<br \/>\nsalary slip to support the Experience certificate.  You have stated<br \/>\nand declared in Dealership Selection Application that you have worked<br \/>\nduring the period 1\/11\/98 to 31\/12\/99 in direct sale\/home delivered<br \/>\nproducts.  Together with Dealership Selection Application dated<br \/>\n29\/10\/2007, you have also submitted Appointment letter dated 15\/10\/98<br \/>\nissued by the Society, interlia stating the salary of Rs.1500\/- per<br \/>\nmonth.  When Show Cause Notice letter bearing no.GLR\/AS\/LPG dated<br \/>\n22\/9\/2009 was issued to you, in order to circumvent the false<br \/>\ndeclaration, you have taken the contrary stand vide your reply dated<br \/>\n9\/11\/09 and Review Application that 7\/12\/2009 that you have worked as<br \/>\nhonorary\/voluntarily basis in the Society.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tThus,<br \/>\nit has come out clearly that you have provided false Experience<br \/>\nCertificate together with Dealership Selection Application stating<br \/>\nthat you have worked as Supervisor of the Society for the period<br \/>\n1\/11\/98 to 31\/12\/1999 for sale of fertilizer\/insecticide or<br \/>\nagricultural produce.\n<\/p>\n<p>B)\tINCOME<br \/>\nCERTIFICATE:-\n<\/p>\n<p>As<br \/>\nper your the Column No.14 and Annx (duly notorised, stamped and<br \/>\nsigned) of your application dated 29.10.2007, you have stated total<br \/>\nincome for year 2006-07 as 5 Lakhs.\n<\/p>\n<p>During<br \/>\nthe personal hearing held on 18\/8\/10, under Annex. 7 of your letter<br \/>\ndated 18\/8\/10, you have produced documents in respect of your income<br \/>\nfor the financial year 2006\/07.   Though for the subject Dealership<br \/>\nSelection, the applicable financial year was 2006\/07, you have<br \/>\nproduced Income Certificate dated 4\/1\/2010 from M\/s K.K.Patel and<br \/>\nAssociates, Chartered Accountants, Himatnagar for the period ended<br \/>\n31\/3\/2007, Income tax return submitted in Jan 2010 in respect of<br \/>\nfinancial year 2006\/07.  Thus, we find that these certificates are<br \/>\noriginated much after the cancellation of the candidature\/empanelment<br \/>\nvide letter dated 21\/11\/2009.\n<\/p>\n<p>As<br \/>\ngiven in our letter bearing no. GLR:AS:LPG dated 21\/11\/2009, vide<br \/>\nletter dated 21.8.2009, we have requested for the relevant details<br \/>\nfrom Mamlatdar Nagrik Seva Kendra, Bhiloda attaching the income<br \/>\ncertificate issued by the Naib Mamlatdar, Bhiloda.  Vide letter dated<br \/>\n27.8.2009 the Mamlatdar, Bhiloda confirmed that you have income from<br \/>\nAgriculture is Rs.2.5 Lakhs, Rs.50,000 from Milk products and 2 Lakhs<br \/>\nfrom practice as Advocate.  Hence, during the verification it has<br \/>\nbeen found that you have given false income and your income of Rs.5<br \/>\nLakhs is not only through the source of Agriculture.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tIn<br \/>\nyour reply dated 9.11.2009 (under Annex. 7) you have stated that your<br \/>\nincome is Rs.5,00,930\/- from the agricultural Income and Rs.80985\/-<br \/>\nas income from business and profession.  We find that the income from<br \/>\nbusiness and profession for Rs.80985\/- is not shown at the time of<br \/>\napplication.  Thus, on this count also you have given false income<br \/>\ndeclaration.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tOur<br \/>\nreview of the documents and facts reconfirms that you given false<br \/>\nstatement\/declaration in the application and submitted false<br \/>\naffidavit in respect of your annual income.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tView<br \/>\nabove, on examination of your Review Application dated 7\/12\/2009,<br \/>\nApplication dated 18\/8\/10 and annexures thereof and all other<br \/>\nrelevant documents, we find that there is no reason to deviate from<br \/>\nearlier finding and cancellation of candidature and empanelment of<br \/>\ncandidature of you,  vide letter bearing no.GLR:AS:LPG dated<br \/>\n21\/11\/2009.  It is reconfirmed that that you have submitted false<br \/>\ndocuments and submitted false declarations in your above said<br \/>\napplication dated 29.10.2007 in respect of experience and income for<br \/>\nthe LPG Dealership at Bhiloda.  Under Sr. No 16 and 17 of the Dealer<br \/>\nSelection application dated 29-10-2007, you have given an undertaking<br \/>\nthat any wrong information\/misrepresentation\/suppression of facts<br \/>\nwould make you ineligible for the LPG distributorship.\n<\/p>\n<p>Under<br \/>\nabove facts and circumstances, we find that cancellation of your<br \/>\ncandidature and empanelment vide letter bearing no.GLR\/AS\/LPG dated<br \/>\n21\/11\/2009 stands valid.\n<\/p>\n<p>9.\tI<br \/>\nhave considered reasoning given by respondent authorities and also<br \/>\nconsidered correct details and documents which were not supplied by<br \/>\npetitioner at the time when application dated 29.10.2007 was made to<br \/>\nrespondent. In such circumstances, an identical question has been<br \/>\nexamined recently by Apex Court in case of <a href=\"\/doc\/436469\/\">Smt.Monika Gupta v. Union<br \/>\nof India &amp; Others. Reported<\/a> in 2010 AIR SCW 4296 where lady has<br \/>\nbeen considered for appointment of LPG distributorship and selection<br \/>\nmade by authority on the basis of brochure providing that details<br \/>\ngiven with application along with application alone would be<br \/>\nconsidered and at the relevant time, respondent did not annex any<br \/>\ndocument along with application form to show that land was available<br \/>\nfor godown or showroom necessary for operating LPG distributorship.<br \/>\nThe documents submitted subsequently showing purchase of land by her<br \/>\nmust have to be ignored and it has been held that selection committee<br \/>\ndid not commit any error by awarding &#8216;zero&#8217; marks to her under<br \/>\nheading &#8216;capability to provide land and infrastructure of godown and<br \/>\nshowroom&#8217;. The relevant observations of aforesaid decision are in<br \/>\nPara.10, 11, 12 and 17 which are quoted as under :\n<\/p>\n<p> 10.<br \/>\n  We have considered the respective submissions and carefully scanned<br \/>\nthe records including the files made available by the learned<br \/>\nSolicitor General, which contain the applications and documents of<br \/>\nthe appellant and respondent No.4.\n<\/p>\n<p>11.\tParagraphs<br \/>\n8 and 13 of the brochure issued by respondent No.2, which have<br \/>\nbearing on the decision of this appeal are as under:\n<\/p>\n<p> 8.<br \/>\nCONSTRUCTION OF GODOWN\/SHOWROOM ON THE SITE AS MENTIONED IN<br \/>\nAPPLICATION FORM<\/p>\n<p>The<br \/>\napplicant who readily has suitable godown\/land for construction of<br \/>\ngodown for storage filled LPG cylinders and LPG cylinders and<br \/>\nshop\/land for construction of shop for HP GAS showroom for setting up<br \/>\nof HP GAS Distributorship or have a firm commitment from the land<br \/>\nowner for purchase\/lease or can arrange it are awarded marks. The<br \/>\ndetails given along with the application alone will be considered for<br \/>\nthis purpose and the applicant will not be given any opportunity to<br \/>\noffer any other land subsequently even at the time of interview. For<br \/>\nthis purpose, the land owned by the family applicant subject to<br \/>\nattaching the consent of the concerned family members. LPG will<br \/>\ndecide the suitability of the land on the basis of the documents<br \/>\nsubmitted along with the application. However, after selection of the<br \/>\napplicant, physical verification of the godown land\/godown as well as<br \/>\nthe showroom will be undertaken. In the event it is found that there<br \/>\nis variance in the details submitted with the application form and or<br \/>\nthe plot is not found suitable for construction of godown or the<br \/>\ngodown is not approved by CCOE the allotment of the distributorship<br \/>\nwill stand automatically cancelled.\n<\/p>\n<p>If<br \/>\nan applicant, after selection of the above basis, is unable to<br \/>\navailable make godown duly approved by the Chief Controller of<br \/>\nExplosives on the land\/godown indicated in the application and\/or<br \/>\nshowroom as per the oil company s standard layout on the land\/shop<br \/>\nindicated in the application, then the allotment of HP GAS<br \/>\nDistributorship made to the applicant will automatically stand<br \/>\ncancelled.\n<\/p>\n<p>13.\tNORMS<br \/>\nFOR EVALUATING THE CANDIDATES<\/p>\n<p>The<br \/>\nLPG distributor will be selected on the basis of evaluation of all<br \/>\neligible applicants on the following parameters.\n<\/p>\n<p>a)<br \/>\n   Capability to provide infrastructure* 35 marks<\/p>\n<p>b)<br \/>\n   Capability to provide finance*           35 marks<\/p>\n<p>c)\tEducational<br \/>\nqualifications**            15 marks<\/p>\n<p>d.\tAge**<br \/>\n   \t                              \t       4 marks<\/p>\n<p>e.\n<\/p>\n<pre>   Experience \t                                 4 marks\n \n\n\nf.\n   Business ability\/acumen                      5 marks\n \n\n\ng.\n    Personality**                                      2 marks\n \n\n\n \n\n\n \n\n\n\tTotal\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">marks \t                                      100<\/span>\n \n\n\n \n\n\n \n\n\nThe\n<\/pre>\n<p>evaluation on the parameters a to d above will be done on the basis<br \/>\nof the information given in the application. The evaluation on the<br \/>\nparameter e, e and g will be done based on the interview.\n<\/p>\n<p>12.\tWe<br \/>\nshall decide this appeal by assuming that the applications of all the<br \/>\ncandidates had been received by the competent authority before the<br \/>\nlast date because it is not the case of either party that the<br \/>\napplications were submitted by the candidates after the last date<br \/>\nfixed for receipt thereof I.e. 9.3.2004. In clauses (a) and (b) of<br \/>\nparagraph 17 of the application form, the candidates were required to<br \/>\nindicate in yes\/no, the availability of land\/plot for godown and the<br \/>\nshowroom. While the appellant had scored out `No  in both the<br \/>\nclauses and thereby indicated that land was available for godown and<br \/>\nshe also had a showroom, respondent No.4 did not score out `Yes  or<br \/>\n`No . This is sufficient to give rise to a presumption that the<br \/>\ndate on which respondent No.4 is said to have submitted the<br \/>\napplication, she did not have land for godown or showroom. It is<br \/>\nborne out from the files produced by the learned Solicitor General<br \/>\nthat along with her application form, the appellant had annexed<br \/>\nvarious documents showing her financial status and copies of the sale<br \/>\ndeeds and site plans showing the availability of land for godown and<br \/>\nshowroom. As against this, respondent No.4 did not annex any document<br \/>\nalong with the application form to show that land was available for<br \/>\ngodown or showroom. Later on, she is said to have submitted two<br \/>\naffidavits which are shown to have been notarized on 8.3.2004. The<br \/>\nstamp papers on which the affidavits were prepared bear the dates of<br \/>\npurchase as 4.3.2004 and 5.3.2004. One of these affidavits is of<br \/>\nrespondent No.4 herself. The other is the affidavit of Ramnath son of<br \/>\nShri Janki Singh Yadav resident of Jaisinghpur, Tehsil Kayamganj,<br \/>\nDistrict Farrukhabad, who is said to have agreed to provide his shop<br \/>\nfor the purpose of showroom to respondent No.4 in case she was<br \/>\nselected for LPG distributorship. The file of respondent No.4 also<br \/>\ncontains photostat copy of the sale deed executed by Shri Shivnath<br \/>\nSingh son of late Shri Makrant Singh, resident of village Bhatasa<br \/>\nPargana Shamshabad, West Tehsil Kayamganj, in favour of Rajesh Kumar<br \/>\nGangwar (husband of respondent No.4).       The sale deed is shown to<br \/>\nhave been presented before Sub-Registrar, Kayamganj between 2 to 3<br \/>\np.m. on 9.3.2004 and was registered on the same day. However, the two<br \/>\naffidavits and the photostat copy of the sale deed do not contain any<br \/>\nendorsement showing the date of receipt.\n<\/p>\n<p>17.<br \/>\n  From the above analysis of the application forms and documents<br \/>\nfiled by respondent No.4, it is clear that the Selection Committee<br \/>\ndid not commit any error by awarding `zero&#8217; marks to her under the<br \/>\nheading &#8220;Capability to provide land and infrastructure for<br \/>\ngodown and showroom&#8221;. As a corollary, we hold that the decision<br \/>\nof respondent No.3 to cancel the panel\/merit list on the ground that<br \/>\nthe Selection Committee had erred in not awarding 30 marks to<br \/>\nrespondent No.4 under the heading `infrastructure&#8217; was legally<br \/>\nunsustainable. Unfortunately, the Division Bench of the High Court<br \/>\nfailed to notice that in para 17 of the application form, respondent<br \/>\nNo.4 had not indicated the availability of land for godown and\/or<br \/>\nshowroom and that in view of the language of para 8 of the brochure,<br \/>\nthe Selection Committee had no option but to ignore affidavit dated<br \/>\n8.3.2004 of Ramnath son of Shri Janki Singh and copy of sale deed<br \/>\ndated 9.3.2004 executed by Shri Shivnath Singh in favour of Shri<br \/>\nRajesh Kumar Gangwar (husband of respondent No.4) for the purpose of<br \/>\nawarding marks. We have no doubt that if the Division Bench had<br \/>\nsummoned the relevant records and perused the same, it would have<br \/>\ndiscovered that the application of respondent No.4 was laconic in<br \/>\nmaterial respects and the Selection Committee had rightly awarded<br \/>\nzero marks to her under the heading `infrastructure&#8217;.      In any<br \/>\ncase, we are convinced that respondent No.3 committed serious error<br \/>\nby recording a finding that respondent No.4 was entitled to 30 marks<br \/>\nunder the heading `infrastructure&#8217;.\n<\/p>\n<p>10.\tIn<br \/>\nview of aforesaid law laid down by Supreme Court and while<br \/>\nconsidering reasoning given by respondent   reviewing authority,<br \/>\nthe  facts which comes on record that initial details and documents<br \/>\nwhich have been supplied by petitioner is found to be incorrect and<br \/>\nwhatever subsequent material and documents produced by petitioner,<br \/>\nhas been rightly not considered by respondent authorities because it<br \/>\nis irrelevant which were not attached to original  application dated<br \/>\n29.10.2007 made by petitioner. Therefore, subsequent documents which<br \/>\nhave been relied by petitioner cannot be considered and on that<br \/>\nbasis, details and documents which have been supplied in original<br \/>\ndealer selection application dated 29.10.2007, Sr. Nos.16 and 17, an<br \/>\nundertaking which has been given to the effect that petitioner will<br \/>\nnot supply wrong information\/mis-representation\/ suppression of facts<br \/>\nwhich would make him ineligble for LPG distributorship. Therefore,<br \/>\nrespondent authorities has rightly come to conclusion while deciding<br \/>\nreview application that documents which are produced on record on<br \/>\n18.8.2010 and facts are confirms that petitioner has given false<br \/>\nstatement \/ declaration in the application and also submitted false<br \/>\naffidavit in respect to annual income. Similarly, in respect to<br \/>\nexperience also, considering experience certificate together with<br \/>\ndealership selection application where petitioner has stated that he<br \/>\nhad worked as a supervisor of society for the period from 1.11.1998<br \/>\nto 31.12.1999 for sale of fertilizer insecticides or agriculture<br \/>\nproduce is found to be false after proper scrutiny by respondent<br \/>\nauthorities. Therefore, in respect to experience, a contradictory<br \/>\nstand taken by petitioner before respondent authorities which<br \/>\nultimately come to conclusion that petitioner has given wrong<br \/>\ninformation \/ mis-representation \/ suppression of fact supplied to<br \/>\nrespondents at the time when application for dealer selection made on<br \/>\n29.10.2007 which is found to be contrary to undertaking given at Sr.<br \/>\nNos.16 and 17 of dealer selection application. Therefore, contentions<br \/>\nraised by learned Senior Advocate Mr.Kavina cannot be accepted. The<br \/>\nfinding of fact which has been found from record by respondent<br \/>\nauthorities is considered to be a legal and valid finding, based on<br \/>\nrecord and it cannot be said that  finding given by respondent<br \/>\nauthorities is baseless and perverse. This Court is having limited<br \/>\njurisdiction to interfere with such administrative order because this<br \/>\nCourt has to examine only decision making process and not the<br \/>\ndecision.\n<\/p>\n<p>11.\tThe<br \/>\nview taken by Apex Court  in case of <a href=\"\/doc\/788049\/\">Union of India and Anr. v.<br \/>\nK.G.Soni,<\/a> reported in (2006) 6 SCC 794  in Para.13 and 14, which is<br \/>\nquoted as under :\n<\/p>\n<p>13.\t<a href=\"\/doc\/107483\/\">In<br \/>\nUnion of India and Anr. v. G. Ganayutham<\/a> (1997 [7] SCC 463), this<br \/>\nCourt summed up the position relating to proportionality in<br \/>\nparagraphs 31 and 32, which read as follows:\n<\/p>\n<p> 31.\tThe<br \/>\ncurrent position of proportionality in administrative law in England<br \/>\nand India can be summarized as follows:\n<\/p>\n<p>(1)\tTo<br \/>\njudge the validity of any administrative order or statutory<br \/>\ndiscretion, normally the Wednesbury test is to be applied to find out<br \/>\nif the decision was illegal or suffered from procedural improprieties<br \/>\nor was one which no sensible decision-maker could, on the material<br \/>\nbefore him and within the framework of the law, have arrived at. The<br \/>\ncourt would consider whether relevant matters had not been taken into<br \/>\naccount or whether irrelevant matters had been taken into account or<br \/>\nwhether the action was not bona fide. The court would also consider<br \/>\nwhether the decision was absurd or perverse. The court would not<br \/>\nhowever go into the correctness of the choice made by the<br \/>\nadministrator amongst the various alternatives open to him.  Nor<br \/>\ncould the court substitute its decision to that of the administrator.\n<\/p>\n<p>This<br \/>\nis the Wednesbury (1948 1 KB 223) test.\n<\/p>\n<p>(2)\tThe<br \/>\ncourt would not interfere with the administrator s decision unless<br \/>\nit was illegal or suffered from procedural impropriety or was<br \/>\nirrational  in the sense that it was in outrageous defiance of logic<br \/>\nor moral standards. The possibility of other tests, including<br \/>\nproportionality being brought into English administrative law in<br \/>\nfuture is not ruled out.  These are the CCSU (1985 AC 374)<br \/>\nprinciples.\n<\/p>\n<p>(3)(a)<br \/>\nAs per Bugdaycay (1987 AC 514), Brind (1991 (1) AC 696) and Smith<br \/>\n(1996 (1) All ER 257) as long as the Convention is not incorporated<br \/>\ninto English law, the English courts merely exercise a secondary<br \/>\njudgment to find out if the decision-maker could have, on the<br \/>\nmaterial before him, arrived at the primary judgment in the manner he<br \/>\nhas done.\n<\/p>\n<p>(3)(b)<br \/>\nIf the Convention is incorporated in England making available the<br \/>\nprinciple of proportionality, then the English courts will render<br \/>\nprimary judgment on the validity of the<\/p>\n<p>administrative<br \/>\naction and find out if the restriction is disproportionate or<br \/>\nexcessive or is not based upon a fair balancing of the fundamental<br \/>\nfreedom and the need for the restriction thereupon.\n<\/p>\n<p>(4)(a)<br \/>\nThe position in our country, in administrative law, where no<br \/>\nfundamental freedoms as aforesaid are involved, is that the<br \/>\ncourts\/tribunals will only play a secondary role while the primary<br \/>\njudgment as to reasonableness will remain with the executive or<br \/>\nadministrative authority.  The secondary judgment of the court is to<br \/>\nbe based on Wednesbury and CCSU principles as stated by Lord Greene<br \/>\nand Lord Diplock respectively to find if the executive or<br \/>\nadministrative authority has reasonably arrived at his decision as<br \/>\nthe primary authority.\n<\/p>\n<p>(4)(b)<br \/>\nWhether in the case of administrative or executive action affecting<br \/>\nfundamental freedoms, the courts in our country will apply the<br \/>\nprinciple of  proportionality  and assume a primary role, is left<br \/>\nopen, to be decided in an appropriate case where such action is<br \/>\nalleged to offend fundamental freedoms. It will be then necessary to<br \/>\ndecide whether the courts will have a primary role only if the<br \/>\nfreedoms under Articles 19, 21 etc. are involved and not for Article\n<\/p>\n<p>14. <\/p>\n<p>14.\tThe<br \/>\ncommon thread running through in all these decisions is that the<br \/>\nCourt should not interfere with the administrator s decision unless<br \/>\nit was illogical or suffers from procedural impropriety or was<br \/>\nshocking to the conscience of the Court, in the sense that it was in<br \/>\ndefiance of logic or moral standards. In view of what has been stated<br \/>\nin the Wednesbury s case (supra) the Court would not go into the<br \/>\ncorrectness of the choice made by the administrator open to him and<br \/>\nthe Court should not  substitute its decision to that of the<br \/>\nadministrator. The scope of judicial review is limited to the<br \/>\ndeficiency in decision-making process and not the decision.\n<\/p>\n<p>12.\tTherefore,<br \/>\nlooking to entire reasoning given by reviewing authority in order<br \/>\ndated 6.9.2010, according to my opinion, respondent authorities has<br \/>\nnot committed any error which requires interference by this Court.<br \/>\nTherefore, the order passed by respondent authorities cannot be<br \/>\nconsidered to be arbitrary, unreasonable and violative of Article 14<br \/>\nof the Constitution of India. Hence, there is no substance in present<br \/>\npetition. Accordingly, present petition is dismissed.\n<\/p>\n<p>(H.K.RATHOD,J.)<\/p>\n<p>(vipul)<\/p>\n<p>\t\t   \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>\t\t   Top<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Gujarat High Court Randhirsinh vs Hindustan on 22 September, 2010 Author: H.K.Rathod,&amp;Nbsp; 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 &#8211; Petitioner(s) Versus HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD &amp; 2 &#8211; Respondent(s) ========================================================= Appearance [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[16,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-230407","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-gujarat-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.6 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Randhirsinh vs Hindustan on 22 September, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/randhirsinh-vs-hindustan-on-22-september-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Randhirsinh vs Hindustan on 22 September, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/randhirsinh-vs-hindustan-on-22-september-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2010-09-21T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-09-02T12:32:23+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"23 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/randhirsinh-vs-hindustan-on-22-september-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/randhirsinh-vs-hindustan-on-22-september-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Randhirsinh vs Hindustan on 22 September, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-09-21T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-09-02T12:32:23+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/randhirsinh-vs-hindustan-on-22-september-2010\"},\"wordCount\":4606,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Gujarat High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/randhirsinh-vs-hindustan-on-22-september-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/randhirsinh-vs-hindustan-on-22-september-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/randhirsinh-vs-hindustan-on-22-september-2010\",\"name\":\"Randhirsinh vs Hindustan on 22 September, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-09-21T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-09-02T12:32:23+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/randhirsinh-vs-hindustan-on-22-september-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/randhirsinh-vs-hindustan-on-22-september-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/randhirsinh-vs-hindustan-on-22-september-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Randhirsinh vs Hindustan on 22 September, 2010\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Randhirsinh vs Hindustan on 22 September, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/randhirsinh-vs-hindustan-on-22-september-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Randhirsinh vs Hindustan on 22 September, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/randhirsinh-vs-hindustan-on-22-september-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-09-21T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-09-02T12:32:23+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"23 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/randhirsinh-vs-hindustan-on-22-september-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/randhirsinh-vs-hindustan-on-22-september-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Randhirsinh vs Hindustan on 22 September, 2010","datePublished":"2010-09-21T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-09-02T12:32:23+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/randhirsinh-vs-hindustan-on-22-september-2010"},"wordCount":4606,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Gujarat High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/randhirsinh-vs-hindustan-on-22-september-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/randhirsinh-vs-hindustan-on-22-september-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/randhirsinh-vs-hindustan-on-22-september-2010","name":"Randhirsinh vs Hindustan on 22 September, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-09-21T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-09-02T12:32:23+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/randhirsinh-vs-hindustan-on-22-september-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/randhirsinh-vs-hindustan-on-22-september-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/randhirsinh-vs-hindustan-on-22-september-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Randhirsinh vs Hindustan on 22 September, 2010"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/230407","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=230407"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/230407\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=230407"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=230407"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=230407"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}