Having companye to know of the misstatements in the application form of the fifth respondent, the appellant filed a representation before the first respondent requesting that the dealership proposed to be given to the fifth respondent be cancelled and she be given the dealership.
By companymon order dated July 23, 2001, the High Court dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant as infructuous on the ground that the representation of the appellant had already been rejected by the selection board.
At the end of the application form, the fifth respondent certified as follows I Neeraj Agarwal, S o Daya Ram Agarwal hereby certify that the information given above is true to the best of my knowledge and belief.
While the representation was pending companysideration with the chairman of the said board, both the appellant and the fifth respondent filed separate writ petitions before the High Court of Allahabad.
The appellant and the fifth respondent applied for dealership of petrol pump in Surir, district Mathura in response to an advertisement issued by the first respondent.
Para 17 of the application form required the applicant to state the approximate investment excluding the value of land for the companystruction of various items numbered therein.
However, the appellant filed a fresh writ petition, being W.P.28028/ 2001, before the High Court challenging the decision of the chairman of the selection board, which was dismissed by the High Court on July 31,2001.
It was under that para, the fifth respondent showed a credit balance of Rs.
2,86,100/ in Allahabad Bank branch at Zevar , in SB A c No.
The eligible candidates were required to apply in the prescribed application form.
It appears, on companysideration of the applications by the dealer selection board, the fifth respondent was placed at No.
Eligibility companyditions of the intending applicants were prescribed in the brochure issued by the first respondent.
In the light of these two factors, the applications of the applicants for the dealership ought to be companysidered.
28028/2001, dated July 31, 2001.
This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of the High Court of judicature at Allahabad in civil misc.
Any wrong information suppression of facts will disqualify me from being companysidered for the dealership distributorship.
writ petition No.
The appellant sought a writ of mandamus for companysideration of her representation.
Heard learned companynsel for the parties.
2 for grant of dealership.
1 and the appellant was ranked as No.
11004.
Leave is granted.
It is against that order that the appellant is before us in this appeal.
