Satyendra Kumar Yadav vs Union Of India And Another
2022 Latest Caselaw 1877 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

AFR
 
Court No. - 21
 
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 30563 of 2021
 
Petitioner :- Satyendra Kumar Yadav
 
Respondent :- Union Of India And Another
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Ram Raj Prajapati,Dinesh Kumar Maurya
 
Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I.,Gaurav Kumar Chand,Nishant Mehrotra
 

 
Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Gupta,J.

Hon'ble Dinesh Pathak,J.

1. Heard Sri Ram Raj Prajapati, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Gaurav Kumar Chand, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 and Sri Nishant Mehrotra, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 and perused the record.

2. Sri Nishant Mehrotra, learned counsel for the respondents has obtained instructions in the matter from time to time and has placed the same on record for our perusal and states that he does not wish to file any affidavit. Accordingly, the instant matter is being disposed of.

3. The facts, in brief, necessary for decision of the instant petition are that the petitioner applied online on 22.12.2018 for allotment of retail outlet dealership at Gram Chhaparapuri, Pargana Mahuli Purab Tehsil Dhanghata, District Sant Kabir Nagar under OBC category in pursuance of advertisement dated 25.11.2018 issued by Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited (in short ''HPCL'). The petitioner offered, for setting up of the retail outlet, a piece of land owned by his mother on long term lease for a period of nineteen years and eleven months. The petitioner's application was considered by HPCL along with other applicants falling under Group 1. It is pertinent to note that Group 1 applicants are those, who have suitable piece of land in the advertised location/area or long term lease for a period of minimum nineteen years and eleven months. The petitioner was found successful in the Draw of Lots of Group 1 applicants held on 4.7.2019. He was intimated about the same by HPCL by letter dated 5.7.2019 and was required to complete various formalities including the one relating to submission of certain documents. Amongst other, the documents required to be submitted were declaration in Appendix- III A (for offer of land) and Appendix- III B (Advocate's letter). It further stipulated that verification of all attested copies with the original documents would be done during Field Verification of Credentials and that applicant should be in possession of original documents, photostat whereof had been submitted. It further provided that the candidature would be cancelled, in case, initial security deposit is not remitted or the documents listed above, are not submitted within ten days from the date of intimation. It seems that the petitioner in purported compliance of the requirements contained in letter dated 5.7.2019 submitted various documents on 11.7.2019 enclosing therewith affidavit of his mother dated 10.7.2019 in Appendix- III A and Certificate of Advocate in Appendix- III B (dt. 22.12.2018). Respondent No. 2 by order dated 18.7.2019 informed the petitioner that the documents submitted by him are not valid for considering the offer of land in Group I. Accordingly, he was declared ineligible. He was also informed that now his candidature would be considered along with Group III applicants as per guidelines. On receipt of the said letter, the petitioner made a representation on 24.7.2019 stating therein that, by inadvertence, he had filed a recent affidavit of his mother in Appendix- III A albeit having filed the Declaration of Advocate in form III B of a date on which application was filed. He further stated that at the time of submitting the documents, he was informed that documents were in order. Now, he has come to know that his candidature has been rejected finding fault with the affidavit of his mother in Appendix- III A inasmuch as it was not of a date on which original application was filed or prior to it. He submitted that affidavit of his mother in Appendix- III A, which was dated 17.12.2018, i.e. prior to the date on which the application was submitted (22.12.2018) was in his possession and the same was duly enclosed with the representation, with prayer to consider the same. By the impugned order dated 30.12.2019, the respondent No. 2 has declined to consider the affidavit dated 17.12.2018 on the ground that it has been submitted after due date of submission of documents.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was in possession of affidavit of his mother dated 17.12.2018 and Certificate of Advocate dated 22.12.2018 (Appendix- III-A and III-B respectively) of a date prior to the last date specified in the advertisement for submission of application form. At the time of submission of documents, in pursuance of letter dated 5.7.2019, one of the document submitted by the petitioner was Certificate of Advocate in Appendix- III B dated 22.12.2018 (on which date, the application form was submitted). However, under some misapprehension, he filed recent affidavit of his mother along with other documents. As soon as the petitioner came to know that respondents were insisting for an affidavit of a date prior to the submission of application form, the petitioner immediately filed affidavit of his mother dated 17.12.2018, which he was having in his possession even at the time of making the application, along with representation dated 24.7.2019 and requested the respondents to consider the same before proceeding any further in the matter. However, the respondents, in a wholly illegal and arbitrary manner, refused to consider the same. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that submission of documents was a stage after a candidate is declared successful, therefore, in any event, the affidavit in Appendix- III A, which was filed by the petitioner along with his representation dated 24.7.2019 ought to have been considered. It is further submitted that the time limit prescribed for filing the documents by letter dated 5.7.2019 was directory in nature and not mandatory, and in appropriate case, it can be relaxed. Thus, once the petitioner had duly brought to the notice of the respondents, the fact that the petitioner was in possession of affidavit of his mother dated 17.12.2018 but on account of some confusion and inadvertence, he filed a recent affidavit, the respondents ought to have considered the same.

5. Sri Nishant Mehrotra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No. 2 submitted that the documents should be of a date on which application was filed or prior to it. In support of his contention, he has relied upon Note 1, page 12 of the brochure relating to selection of dealership for regular and rural retail outlets, which reads as follows:

"1. All certificate/documents required for meeting Eligibility/Specific eligibility criteria should be in possession of the applicant and valid as on date of application."

6. He has further placed reliance on the stipulation in Clause 13 of the Application Form to the effect that "The above piece of plot owned by me/my family member (as defined in clause 4(v)e of the Brochure) either by way of ownership/long term lease, would be made available for a period of minimum 19 years 11 months as advertised by the Oil Company Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd..

That as per the documents and report from advocate, available with me/us, my/our offer qualifies for being considered under "GROUP 1" as defined in clause 4 (v) of the Brochure for retail outlet dealer selection by the Oil Company Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd."

7. It is submitted that the applicant can make the above declaration only if he was already in possession of the documents contemplated under Appendix- III A and III B. It is urged that this is further clear from paragraph 3 of the Appendix III A, which is as follow:-

"3. That in case he/she/M/s. (name of the Entity) is selected for RO dealership I will either sell/transfer/lease the above mentioned piece of land to Oil Company or to Shri/Smt/Kum/M/s. (name of the Entity _____________ for setting of Retail Outlet facilitates at the above mentioned location as per the site plan duly signed by me/all co-owners. In case of lease, I further confirm that I have no objection if the subject piece of land leased to Shri/Smt./Kum/M/s. (name of the Entity) ______________ is further leased/sub-leased to the Oil Company by him/her as per terms of the Oil Company."

8. Sri Nishant Mehrotra further submitted that since the affidavit in Appendix- III A was of a date subsequent to the date of filing the application form, the respondent-Corporation is fully justified in rejecting petitioner's application under category Group 1. He further submitted that since by letter dated 5.7.2019 while informing the petitioner about his selection, he was granted ten days' time to supply documents, therefore, the documents supplied at a later stage cannot be considered. In support of the said submission, he placed reliance on judgment of Bombay High Court in Nikhil S/o Dilipsing Rajput Vs. Union of India and others, 2021 SCC OnLine Bom 489 and Madras High Court in Ganapathiraman Srinivasan Vs. India Oil Corporation Ltd., 2021 SCC OnLine Mad 1172.

9. In reply, learned counsel for the petitioner tried to distinguish the above judgments by contending that the selection procedure followed in these cases required the applicants to submit documents along with application form, therefore, the documents had to be in possession of the applicant on the date of filing of the application form and the said deficiency cannot be made good at a later stage by submitting certificate/affidavit on a subsequent date. However, in the instant case, no document was required to be filed along with the application form. The procedure followed by HPCL was that after an applicant is selected, he is informed of the same and at that stage, he was required to submit documents, therefore, even if the affidavit, as initially filed by the petitioner, was of a subsequent date, it would have no adverse effect nor would render his candidature ineligible. In alternative, he submitted that the petitioner having filed on record the affidavit of his mother of a date prior to submission of application form and there being no time limit prescribed under the brochure for supplying the documents, the affidavit filed along with the representation dated 24.7.2019 ought to have been considered.

10. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the relevant provisions of the brochure relating to selection of dealership.

11. At the outset, we may mention that we made a specific query from Sri Nishant Mehrotra as to whether any document was required to be filed along with application form. He verified the said fact from the officials of HPCL. In this regard, email received by him from the concerned official of HPCL has been placed on record and it clarifies the position thus:- "We seek documents including Appendix IIIA only after selection of applicant in Draw of lots/Bid opening."

12. The first issue for consideration is whether the affidavit filed by the petitioner in Appendix- III A of a date subsequent to the submission of application form can be considered as valid compliance of the conditions as stipulated in the brochure. In this regard, he may like to refer to Note. 1 at page 12 of the brochure quoted above. According to it, all certificates/documents required for meeting specific eligibility criteria should be in possession of the applicant and valid as on date of application. According to the brochure, there is a common eligibility criteria for all applicants applying as individual as on date of application, unless mentioned otherwise. Thereunder, land and various conditions and requirements attached thereto is also covered. The other type of eligibility prescribed is specific eligibility for those applying in different reserved categories.

13. The stipulation in the application form contained in Clause 13 to the effect that piece of land offered belonging to family member either by way of ownership or long term lease would be made available for a period of nineteen years and eleven months as advertised by the Oil Company as well as paragraph 3 of the form in Appendix III A clearly reveals that an applicant would be in position to make concrete offer of land belonging to his family members only if he is in possession of affidavit in form III -A on or before the date of submission of the application form. The same view has been taken in the judgments cited by the learned counsel for the respondent No. 2. Therefore, we do not find any force in the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that the affidavit of his mother of a date subsequent to the date of filing of the application form was valid compliance of the requirements under the selection procedure.

14. Coming to the alternative submission, it may be noted that in the selection procedure, which has been adopted by respondent No. 2 in the case at hand, indisputably documents were not required to be submitted along with the application form but after the applicant is declared successful in Draw of Lots, which has been confirmed by the official of respondent No. 2 via email sent to their counsel, Sri Nishant Mehrotra and a copy of which, has also been placed on record. In fact, the same is also clear from the stipulation made in the communication dated 5.7.2019 whereby the petitioner was informed about his selection and was required to submit various documents, one amongst them being affidavit as prescribed by Appendix- III A. Sri Nishant Mehrotra, learned counsel for the respondent-Corporation admits that, in the brochure, there is no time limit prescribed for filing of the documents, however as noted above, the petitioner was provided ten days for submitting the documents in question. Indisputably, the petitioner had submitted the documents on 11.7.2019 and along with which, apart from the Certificate of Advocate in Appendix- III B dated 22.12.2018 (the date on which the application form was submitted), the petitioner also filed affidavit of his mother in Appendix III A dated 10.7.2019. As soon as the petitioner came to know that the said affidavit is not acceptable to the respondents, he submitted a representation on 24.7.2019 and along with it, he filed an affidavit of his mother in Appendix- III A dated 17.12.2018, a date prior to the date of submission of the application form.

15. Concededly, vide allotment letter dated 5.7.2019, the petitioner was permitted ten days time to supply documents. Thus, even if it is assumed that letter dated 5.7.2019 was communicated to the petitioner on the same date, the said period of ten days expired on 15.7.2019. Consequently, it is evident that the affidavit in Appendix- III A dated 17.12.2018 was put on record before the respondent-Corporation by the petitioner with a delay of merely nine days. It is an admitted position that since the passing of order dated 30.12.2019, the selection rests at the same stage and has not proceeded any further so far. As noted above, in the brochure for selection of dealership, no specific time limit is prescribed for submitted documents in response to the letter of allotment. We, therefore, are of the considered opinion that in the absence of any statutory prohibition in accepting the documents beyond time frame prescribed in the letter of allotment and having regard to the fact that the petitioner submitted the affidavit of his mother in Appendix- III A of a date prior to the submission of application form soon after he came to know that recent affidavit is not acceptable as well as the fact that by that time, the selection had not progressed any further, respondent No. 2 ought to have considered the said affidavit.

16. In view of above, we are of the opinion that the decision taken by the respondent No. 2 declining to consider the affidavit submitted by the petitioner along with representation dated 24.7.2019 and communication dated 13.12.2019 are not sustainable and are hereby quashed. Since the respondent has yet not examined whether the said affidavit is genuine or not but has refused to consider the same solely on the ground that it was filed beyond time prescribed for submitting documents, therefore, we grant liberty to the respondent-Corporation to examine the said aspect and if it is found that affidavit is a genuine one, the respondent-Corporation shall proceed to consider the same as due compliance of the requirement relating to submission of affidavit in Appendix- III A and will proceed accordingly. The aforesaid exercise shall be completed by the respondent-Corporation within three weeks from today.

17. The writ petition stands disposed of with the above directions.

(Dinesh Pathak,J.) (Manoj Kumar Gupta,J.) 

Order Date :- 4.5.2022

vinay