HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD AFR Court No. 3 Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 55814 of 2011 Jitendra Mohan Singh Yadav And Another......................Petitioners Vs. The Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. And Another...............Respondents *****
Present (Hon'ble Mr. Justice Amitava Lala. & Hon'ble Mr. Justice V.K. Mathur) (Appearance) For the Petitioners : Mr. Vijendra Singh For the respondents : Mr. Prakash Padia Amitava Lala, J. Petitioners are claiming to be the partners of a firm. However, we do not find the name of the partnership firm. Both the partners have jointly applied for allotment of retail outlet of petroleum products of the Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., respondents herein. The same was rejected vide order dated 5.9.2011 which is under challenge herein. According to the corporation, as per the brochure, for selection of petrol-diesel outlet, original of the documents along with the affidavit will be annexed with individual application of the partners which were not available in the present case.
According to the petitioners, such rejection is technical in nature which can be condoned by the corporation on the basis of a judgement and order of a Division Bench of this Court dated 25.7.2011 in Writ C No. 38723 of 2011 (Smt. Kahkasa Bee Vs. Union of India And Another) which is quoted herein:
"Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Prakash Padia, learned Counsel for the respondents.
By this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the order dated 4th May, 2011 as well as the order dated 23rd May, 2011 by which the petitioner has been informed that petitioner's application is rejected.
The petitioner has made an application in response to advertisement dated 20th December, 2010 for retail outlet. In the affidavit, which was filed although the petitioner mentioned that she is married but she did not mention that her husband does not have the dealership. The petitioner on 10th May, 2010 has submitted another affidavit clearly stating that her husband does not have a dealership. The application has been rejected only on the ground that in the affidavit the word husband has been missing, which is apparent from the letter dated 4th May, 2011.
Earlier also an application has been made in which it was stated that the petitioner is married but it was not mentioned that her husband does not have the retail outlet. The mistake appears to be inadvertent and due to oversight.
We are of the view that on such ground the application was not liable to be rejected and petitioner's application ought to have been considered.
In view of the above, we direct the respondents to consider the petitioner also eligible and permit her participation in accordance with law.
Subject to above, the writ petition stands disposed of."
In any event, due to non availability of learned counsel appearing for the Corporation and/or lack of instruction thereof the matter was adjourned till today. Today, learned counsel appearing for the Corporation has stated that in the brochure there is a clause i.e. Clause 4.3 (C) which is as follows:
"(c) PARTNERSHIPS "All partners should individually fulfil the eligibility criteria as specified at 4(A) and 4(B) and each partner should submit separate application forms along with separate application fee. However, the applications should be clubbed together. If called for interview, all of them must appear for interview. They also have to submit a copy of the partnership deed."
Sub clause e,f,g,h of Clause 10 of the brochure speaks as follows:
"e) Originals of the Affidavits and self attested copies of the other supporting documents should be submitted along with the completed application form, duly signed.
f) The applicant should affix his/her recent photographs in the space provided for in the application form.
g) No addition/deletion/alteration will be permitted in the application once it is submitted.
h) No additional documents whatsoever will be accepted or considered after the cut off date of the application."
Initially we are under impression that in case any document is annexed with the affidavit of one of the partners, original of such document may not be available to other, in that way, defence of the Corporation is hyper technical in nature but upon hearing the parties, and going through the brochure, we find that it is not a case of a document which will be annexed in original with one of the partner and photo copy with the other partner but individual documents are to be annexed. Therefore, in that way, defence of the Corporation cannot be ignored. Moreover, the judgement and order dated 25.7.2011, cited above, is based on a facts that the petitioner was allowed to submit another affidavit clearly stating that her husband does not have a dealership and the application has been rejected only on the ground that in the affidavit the word ''husband' has been missing. Therefore, situation therein was that the Corporation on the basis of the mistake of the petitioner therein allowed to file an affidavit clarifying the position.
Thus, the Division Bench vide order dated 25.7.2011 rightly allowed the prayer of the petitioner for consideration of the cause. In the instance case, the Corporation found the petitioners as ineligible on the basis of the application and rejected the same. Therefore, such factum as available in the referred case, is not available hereunder. Moreover, we have also passed an order in several cases on of which is Writ:-C No. 16687 of 2011 (Devendra Singh Vs. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. Thru' Its Chairman/M.D. & Others) as on 18.3.2011 which is as follows:
"According to the petitioner, 24th March, 2011 is the date fixed for interview for allotment of Kisan Sewa Kendra Dealership of the Indian Oil Corporation. However, rejection of his candidature was made on account of non-fulfillment of the appropriate instructing clauses in the application. Since the respondents have objected for allowing such prayer specially in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in 1992 (2) SCC 206 (Karnataka Public Service Commission and others Vs. B.M. Vijaya Shankar and others), where a three Judges' Bench of the Supreme Court was very much strict even for non-incorporation of roll number at appropriate page, and of our High Court passed in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 54400 of 2006 (Smt. Omitri Rai Vs. General Manager and another) dated 26th September, 2006 and Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 52203 of 2009 (Laxman Kaul Vs. Union of India and others) dated 14th October, 2009, we are of the view that no relief can be granted to the petitioner against the order of rejection of application passed by the authority concerned. Therefore, the writ petition is dismissed, however, without imposing any cost."
Relying upon the Supreme Court judgements reported in 1992 (2) SCC 206 (Karnataka Public Service Commission and others Vs. B.M. Vijaya Shankar and others) we also passed several orders where non fulfilment of appropriate instructions in the relevant clauses was there.
According to us, eligibility or ineligibility of a candidate depends upon various circumstances. It is expected that whosoever is going to make such application for grant of license of dealership of petroleum products, is not a rustic villager. Therefore, as per the sweet will, a candidate cannot file the photo copies and subsequently when the cause of rejection arose wants to invoke the writ jurisdiction to condone the defects by incorporating original documents. Supplement the original cannot be a good ground of consideration of the cause and as such in totality, we are of the view that the writ petition is liable to be dismissed and accordingly it is dismissed at the stage of admission, on contest, however, without imposing any cost.
(Justice Amitava Lala) I agree.
(Justice V.K. Mathur) Dt. 27.09.2011 Sandeep