Punjab-Haryana High Court
Udeyveer Singh vs Union Of India & Others on 29 November, 2023
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:151704
2023:PHHC:151704
CWP-12847-2017 (O&M) 1
203 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CWP-12847-2017 (O&M)
Date of decision: 29.11.2023
UDEYVEER SINGH
...Petitioners
V/s
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL
Present: Mr. Chanderhas Yadav, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Raman Sharma, Advocate
for respondents No. 2 and 3.
Mr. Ashish Gupta, Advocate
for respondent No. 4.
****
JAGMOHAN BANSAL J. (ORAL)
1. The present petition has been filed under Article 226/227 of the
Constitution of India praying for setting aside of order/letter dated
23.01.2017 (Annexure P-7) and the order/letter dated 24.05.2017 (Annexure
P-11), whereby Petrol Pump has been allotted to respondent No. 4 and
candidature of petitioner has been rejected.
2. The brief facts of the case are that pursuant to an advertisement
dated 25.10.2014 issued by respondent No. 2-HPCL, the petitioner as well
as respondent No. 4 applied for the allotment of Petrol Pump. The last date
to apply was 26.12.2014 and the respondent No. 4 applied on 24.12.2014.
The petitioner applied under Group II whereas respondent No. 4 applied
under Group I. The advertised site was meant for SC category candidate.
The respondent No. 2-HPCL on 25.02.2015, rejected candidature of the
respondent No. 4, forming an opinion that there are eight co-owners of the
1 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:151704
2023:PHHC:151704
leased land whereas applicant has furnished consent of three co-owners. The
petitioner was declared eligible on 18.05.2016 and draw of lots took place
on 23.05.2016. The respondent No. 4 filed objections dated 31.05.2016. The
respondent-corporation reconsidered documents placed on record by
respondent No. 4 and vide order dated 17.10.2016 came to a conclusion that
candidature of respondent No. 4 was rejected under wrong premise that
there are eight co-owners of the leased land whereas there are three co-
owners. It is apt to notice that respondent-Corporation on the earlier
occasion rejected representation of the respondent No. 4. The respondent
No. 2 vide its letter dated 23.01.2017 (Annexure P-7) declared respondent
No. 4 as successful candidate.HPCL issued LOI dated 29.07.2017 in favour
of respondent No. 4. In the interregnum, the petitioner filed objections
which came to be rejected vide communication dated 24.05.2017 (Annexure
P-11).
3. The counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends that respondent
No. 4 got her lease deed cancelled on 20.04.2016. As the lease deed of
respondent No. 4 was cancelled prior to draw of lots, thus, the respondent
No. 4 could not be allotted dealership of Petrol Pump. The respondent No. 4
had furnished Haryana Resident Certificate after filing application. The said
certificate furnished by respondent No. 4 is dated 13.03.2015 whereas last
date to apply was 26.12.2014. The respondent-Corporation has co-operated
with respondent No. 4 in all respects and their endeavour was to allot
dealership to respondent No. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner in support
of his contentions relied upon judgment of Allahabad High Court titled as
Manoj Kumar Rai Vs. Union of India through Secy. Ministry of
Petroleum and Natural Gas and Others 2015 SCC Online All 7597,
2 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:151704
2023:PHHC:151704
Ramesh Chandra Mishra Vs. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. Through Sr.
Div. Manager(Rs) and Ors. 2015 SCC Online All 9360 and Madhya
Pradesh High Court judgment titled as Smt. Sanghmitra Mandeliya Vs.
Indian Oil Corporation 2015 SCC Online MP 2214.
4. Per contra, counsel for the respondent-Corporation and respondent
No. 4 submitted that there was mistake on the part of the Corporation while
scrutinizing lease deed furnished by respondent No. 4. There were eight
owners of original land, however, partition took place and the land which
was offered as leased land became property of three owners out of earlier
eight owners. The respondent-Corporation wrongly considered eight persons
as owners of the land whereas there were three co-owners. The respondent
has rectified its mistake. The petitioner cannot take advantage of mistake of
the respondent-Corporation. It is a settled law that no one can take benefit of
mistake of another person. Respondent No. 4 submitted Haryana Resident
Certificate at the time of filing application, however, its date was not as per
requirement of the brochure. Respondent No. 4 on the asking of HPCL,
submitted another certificate dated 13.03.2015. The mistake was a
rectifiable mistake.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the
record.
6. The conceded position emerging from the record is that pursuant
to the advertisement dated 25.10.2014 issued by respondent-Corporation,
petitioner as well as respondent No. 4 applied for allotment of dealership.
The last date to apply was 26.12.2014. The respondent No. 4 applied under
Group I as she was claiming that she has confirmed lease deed of 30 years.
Petitioner applied under Group II. The respondent-Corporation scrutinized
3 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:151704
2023:PHHC:151704
documents of all the candidates and during scrutiny declared respondent No.
4 ineligible on the ground that she has not secured consent of all the
co-owners of the land. The petitioner was found eligible on 18.05.2016 and
draw of lots took place on 23.05.2016. The respondent No. 4 filed objections
which initially came to be rejected, however, respondent-Corporation
reconsidered her objections and found that there are three co-owners of the
land offered by her and Corporation has wrongly considered eight owners of
the land. The HPCL-respondent No. 2 vide its order dated 17.10.2016
declared respondent No. 4 as eligible. She had applied under Group I and
there was no other candidate in Group I, thus she came to be selected vide
communication dated 23.01.2017.
7. The claim of the petitioner is that respondent No. 4 has furnished
documents at a subsequent stage and it is a settled law that documents
furnished after cut off date cannot be considered. The petitioner has relied
upon aforestated judgments.
8. It is true that a candidate cannot be permitted to change his status
as was on the date of filing application. A person who has applied under
Group I cannot be permitted to file a different lease deed or a totally new
lease deed at a subsequent stage. The facts of the present case are entirely
different. Respondent No. 4 furnished lease deed which was valid in all
respects. The respondent-Corporation under wrong permise declared
respondent No. 4 ineligible. On reconsideration of documents, the
Corporation found that there are three co-owners of the leased land and they
have wrongly considered eight owners of the land. The respondent No. 4
had furnished consent of three owners who were co-owners of the leased
land, thus, there was no question of consent of eight owners. The mistake on
4 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:151704
2023:PHHC:151704
the part of Corporation took place because previously there were eight
owners of the leased land, however, partition had already taken place and on
the date of application, there were three co-owners of the leased land. It is a
settled proposition of law that no one can be punished for the mistake of
anyone else and no one can claim benefit on account of mistake of anyone
else. There was mistake on the part of the Corporation which they accepted
and corrected. The petitioner is trying to take advantage of mistake of the
respondent-Corporation. Respondent No. 4 was declared ineligible on
25.02.2015, thus, she got the lease deed cancelled on 20.04.2016. However,
as soon as respondent-Corporation corrected its mistake, the respondent No.
4 got executed another lease deed which was with respect to same land and
between the same parties.
9. The petitioner has raised another objection i.e. objection with
respect to Haryana Resident Certificate. Admittedly, the respondent No. 4 at
the initial stage, submitted certificate which was dated more than 06 months
prior to the date of advertisement. Thus, it was not considered by
respondent-Corporation and respondent No. 4 furnished another certificate
dated 13.03.2015. The petitioner is only disputing that Resident Certificate
was submitted post date of application. The respondent No. 4 at the initial
stage, submitted Resident Certificate which was rejected on the ground that
it is older than 06 months from the date of advertisement. The respondent-
Corporation vide its letter dated 25.02.2015 asked the respondent No. 4 to
furnish fresh Resident Certificate. In the said letter, it was categorically
mentioned that it is a rectifiable deficiency. The said letter was issued prior
to declaring the petitioner as eligible.
5 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:151704
2023:PHHC:151704
From the perusal of communication dated 25.02.2015, it is evident
that since the beginning, opinion of Corporation was that Resident
Certificate is a rectifiable defect. The respondent-Corporation in its
communication dated 30.05.2016 had accepted that respondent No. 4 has
rectified her mistake with respect to Resident Certificate.
11. In the wake of above discussions and findings, this Court is of the
considered opinion that the present petition deserves to be dismissed and the
same is hereby dismissed.
12. Pending CM(s), if any, are also disposed of accordingly.
(JAGMOHAN BANSAL)
JUDGE
29.11.2023
Ajay Goswami
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:151704
6 of 6
