Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 57 (ALL)

BIPIN KUMAR SRIVASTAVA v. UNION OF INDIA

2014-01-08

A.P.SAHI, ANIL KUMAR AGARWAL

body2014
JUDGMENT By the Court.—Heard Sri Akhilesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Vikas Budhwar for the respondent-Bharat Petroleum Corporation. 2. This petition was entertained and notices were issued on 4.10.2013 calling upon the respondents to file a counter affidavit. No counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents and Sri Budhwar further prays for time to file counter affidavit. We are not inclined to grant any further time for the trivial nature of the dispute which is involved in the present case as would be evident from the facts narrated hereinafter. 3. The petitioner spells his first name as Bipin. The same letters are indicated in the High School and Intermediate certificates of the petitioner which are also on record. 4. The petitioner, however, while signing uses the letter ‘V’ instead of ‘B’ for his first name. There is no dispute with regard to the identity of the petitioner or his parentage or his address. It is not the case of the respondents that there is some other person of this name and identity, yet the petitioner’s candidature has been cancelled solely on the ground that there is a difference in the spelling of the name of the petitioner and the signatures put by him on the application form as well as in his bank accounts. 5. Having given our conscious and anxious consideration to the aforesaid grounds, taken in the impugned order, we are surprised at the manner in which the respondent-Corporation has proceeded to annul the candidature of the petitioner on this trivial note. There is absolutely no indication in the order about any doubt in the identity of the petitioner, except the said difference in spelling in his first name which according to the petitioner is not a mistake. To our mind also when the parentage and the address etc. are all the same and there is no dispute, rather any substantial dispute with regard to the identity of the petitioner, the rejection of the application on this ground does not appear to be justified and is absolutely unwarranted. The order dated 17.12.2012, therefore, cannot stand scrutiny of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and it is accordingly quashed. 6. The writ petition is allowed. The respondent-Corporation shall reconsider the candidature of the petitioner in accordance with law within a period of three months’ from today. The order dated 17.12.2012, therefore, cannot stand scrutiny of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and it is accordingly quashed. 6. The writ petition is allowed. The respondent-Corporation shall reconsider the candidature of the petitioner in accordance with law within a period of three months’ from today. In the event the petitioner’s candidature is otherwise found to be valid then no further proceedings shall be undertaken pursuant to the fresh advertisement which has been issued.