Madras High Court
Indian Oil Corporation Ltd vs R.Nagappan on 7 July, 2023
WA No.564 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 07.07.2023
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.SANJAY V.GANGAPURWALA , CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.D.AUDIKESAVALU
WA No.564 of 2023
Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.,
rep. By its Chief Manager – Marketing,
Chennai Divisional Office,
500, Anna Salai,
Teynampet, Chennai 18 ... Appellant
Vs
R.Nagappan ... Respondent
Prayer: Writ appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent to set
aside the order dated 15.02.2023 in WP No.34807 of 2022.
For the Appellant :: Mr.Mohammed Fayaz Ali
For the Respondents :: Mr.Ashwin Shanbhag
Mr.Najeeb Usman Khan,
for the intervenor
Page 1 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WA No.564 of 2023
JUDGMENT
(Made by the Hon'ble Chief Justice)
Heard Mr.Mohammed Fayaz Ali, learned counsel for the
petitioner, Mr.Ashwin Shanbhag, learned counsel for the respondent
and Mr.Najeeb Usman Khan, learned counsel for the intervenor.
2. The present respondent had filed a writ petition before the
learned Single Judge seeking directions against the present
appellant to reevaluate the petitioner's financial capability as on
30.08.2022.
3. The appellant had invited applications for a retail outlet.
The respondent, original writ petitioner, was one of the participants.
According to the writ petitioner, he possessed an amount of more
than Rs.35,54,104.44 in his bank account. However, the appellant
had considered only an amount of Rs.22,10,104.44, on the ground
that on 29.08.2022, only the said amount was standing to the
credit of the respondent in the bank account; whereas on
30.08.2022, the amount standing to the respondent’s credit in the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WA No.564 of 2023
bank account was Rs.35,54,104.44. The application was uploaded
on 30.08.2022.
4. The learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition and
directed the appellant to take into consideration the financial
capability of the respondent/writ petitioner as on 30.08.2022. The
same is assailed in the present appeal.
5. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the
respondent in his application has specifically mentioned the date as
‘29.08.2022’. As such, the financial capability as on the said date
only has to be considered. The learned counsel relies upon clause
5.2.1 and note thereunder. The learned counsel submits that the
applicant was required to meet all the eligibility criteria as on the
date of application. The date of application was 29.08.2022. As
such, as on the date of application, the financial capability is
required to be evaluated. If the respondent would not have
mentioned any date on the application, then the date ‘30.08.2022’
would have been considered. However, as the date ‘29.08.2022’
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WA No.564 of 2023
was specifically mentioned by the respondent, it is only on that
date, the financial capability of the respondent is required to be
evaluated. In clause 5.2.1, it has been specifically provided that the
funds mentioned in the application form should be available with the
applicant as on the date of application, which should be mandatorily
filled-in by all applicants. In light of that, no other view was
possible.
6. The learned counsel for the appellant relies on the judgment
of the Apex Court in the case of W.B.State Electricity Board Vs. Patel
Engineering Co. Ltd. and others, (2001) 2 SCC 451, the judgment
of Division Bench of this Court in the case of Tamil Nadu Police
Housing Corporation Ltd., Vs. P & C Projects (P) Ltd., 2018 (5) CTC
387; and another judgment of Division Bench of this Court in the
case of K.M.Mustafa Vs. Indian Railway Catering & Tourism
Corporation (IRCTC) Ltd., 2019 (2) CTC 413, to contend that if the
mistake, though unintentional, but is not beyond the control of the
party, then in that case, such a mistake cannot inure to the benefit
of that party. If the bidder fails to follow the rules and regulations
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WA No.564 of 2023
as set-forth, the bidder cannot gain an advantage by his mistake.
7. We have also heard the learned counsel for the intervenor,
one of the participants, who submits that the intervenor has
followed all the rules and regulations.
8. We have also heard the learned counsel for the respondent/
original writ petitioner. He supports the order passed by the learned
single Judge.
9. The dispute amongst the parties lies in a narrow compass.
The respondent had mentioned the date as ‘29.08.2022’, in his
application. However, he uploaded the said application only on
30.08.2022. These are undisputed facts. It is not disputed that the
respondent had filed the application with the present appellant only
on 30.08.2022, though he had mentioned the date as ‘29.08.2022’
in his application. For all factual and practical purposes, the date of
application would be the date on which it is filed with the principal;
in the present case, the appellant. It is also not disputed that as on
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WA No.564 of 2023
the date the application was filled-in or was filed with the appellant
i.e. 30.08.2022, the balance amount in the account of the present
respondent was Rs.35,54,104.44. According to the appellant, the
date mentioned by the respondent in the application would be the
material date. Reliance is placed on clause 5.2.1.
10. Date of application would be the date when it is filed with
the appellant. A person may mention any date in the application, as
the date he is filing the application, but the actual date is, when it is
filed with the appellant. It is undisputed that the respondent had
filed the said application with the appellant only on 30.08.2022 and
on that day, he had an amount of Rs.35,54,104.44 in his account.
11. Be that as it may, we are not concerned with how much
amount the respondent had in his account on 30.08.2022. We are
only concerned with the relevant date to be considered by the
appellant for considering the financial capability.
12. As we have held that the relevant date of application
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WA No.564 of 2023
would be the date when it is filed with the appellant, then, there is
no gain in saying that the respondent had put the date ‘29.08.2022’
in the application, and that is the date that should be considered,
though it is filed with the present appellant only on 30.08.2022.
13. The learned single Judge has considered all the aspects of
the matter and has exercised his discretion of judicial review in a
reasonable manner. It is trite that the appellate court would be
loath in interfering with the discretion exercised by the learned
single Judge.
14. For all the aforesaid reasons, we do not find any merit in
the appeal. The appeal is dismissed. There will be no order as to
costs. Consequently, CMP Nos.5668 & 8910 of 2023 of 2023 are
closed.
(S.V.G., CJ.) (P.D.A., J.)
07.07.2023
Index : No
Neutral Citation : No
tar
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WA No.564 of 2023
THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
P.D.AUDIKESAVALU, J.
(tar)
WA No.564 of 2023
07.07.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
