Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 231 (BOM)

Jitendra kumar v. Indian Oil Corporation Limited

2015-01-23

A.P.BHANGALE, B.P.DHARMADHIKARI

body2015
Judgment (B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.) 1. Considering the nature of controversy involved in the matter, Writ Petition is heard finally by consent of the learned Counsel appearing for the parties, by issuing Rule, making the same returnable forthwith. 2. Shri Samarth, learned Counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner has fully complied with the eligibility norms in relation to financial capacity, and respondents had been too technical about non-production of original fixed deposit receipts, mentioned in tender document, as security. Its non-production at the most could have resulted in discarding those two receipts, which does not in any way prejudice the eligibility of petitioner in terms of the advertisement. 3. Shri Joshi, learned Counsel appearing for respondents has relied upon reply affidavit. He submits that the matter pertains to contract between the parties and in this situation, in order to be fair and transparent, all officers of the respondent interpret the provisions strictly. He points out that petitioner was aware of his obligation to produce originals of all documents submitted by him along with his application, and this was also communicated to him vide interview call. As two original documents could not be produced, these stipulations were breached and it automatically led to rejection of his application. 4. He also invites attention to additional submissions placed on record by respondents on 20.11.2014. According to him, the Union of India has instructed the respondents to cancel all such proposals where interviews have not taken place. He submits that here as respondent no.3 claimant was already interviewed, consequently the directions of Union of India did not apply, however, if fresh interviews are directed to be held, the communication dated 23.06.2014, will become applicable and respondents will be required to issue fresh advertisement. He points out that as per the said direction of Union of India, allotment is now to be made by draw of lots and not on the strength of interview only. 5. Shri Samarth, learned counsel submits that petitioner here was erroneously excluded from interview process and hence, new policy may not apply. 6. Eligibility norms, in so far as the financial status is concerned, are not in dispute. The petitioner has to show availability of Rs. 45 lacs with him and additional amount of Rs. 19 lacs as working capital. The petitioner has accordingly submitted necessary documents while submitting his application. 6. Eligibility norms, in so far as the financial status is concerned, are not in dispute. The petitioner has to show availability of Rs. 45 lacs with him and additional amount of Rs. 19 lacs as working capital. The petitioner has accordingly submitted necessary documents while submitting his application. During interview, those documents are to be looked into and depending upon the liquidity, marks are allotted to the applicants. He states that petitioner has given details of cash with him lying in various accounts. He pointed out amount of Rs. 69,96,897/- in his own account along with other accounts. Additionally 5 accounts of father were also mentioned. Total amount thus, pointed out was Rs.1,15,53,093/-. 7. Record show that petitioner at the time of interview could not submit the original of two accounts in the name of his father. Those accounts had amount of Rs. 5 lacs each. Thus, petitioner at the most could not account for Rs. 10 lacs out of the total amount mentioned above. Petitioner has also submitted a certificate showing that his father has withdrawn those amounts before this Court. 8. The condition no.3 relied upon by the respondents show that self-attested copies of documents are to be attached along with the application of all documents. Originals of such documents are to be brought at the time of interview. This is also made clear in Clause 13 of the broucher. Interview call sent to the petitioner on 05.11.2012 also obliged him to bring original documents. 9. In reply filed before this Court, respondents in paragraph no.5 pointed out that the petitioner has violated this condition and he did not bring all originals. Respondents may be correct in pointing out that they have to abide by the terms and conditions which are contained in the advertisement and broucher. Those are the standards fixed by them so as to enable others to judge their action. The perusal of the interview call dated 05.11.2012 itself shows that the requirement to bring originals do not use word “shall” but, implies word “may”. It communicates to petitioner that not bringing of original “may lead to disqualification”. Those are the standards fixed by them so as to enable others to judge their action. The perusal of the interview call dated 05.11.2012 itself shows that the requirement to bring originals do not use word “shall” but, implies word “may”. It communicates to petitioner that not bringing of original “may lead to disqualification”. There is a proviso to it, which stipulates that in circumstances which are stipulated in that proviso, if original documents are not produced, the candidate will not be disqualified and first circumstance is, if such candidate is in a position to substantiate his claim by pointing out other original documents. When this interview call dated 05.11.2012 is read as a whole, it is apparent that mere non production of original of one of the document does not automatically lead to disqualification. It imposes obligation upon the respondents to find out whether such document which original is not produced, materially affect the status or eligibility of the petitioner. That decision has not been taken in the present matter. 10. Here it is necessary to mention the term deposit receipt or accounts on which the petitioner has placed reliance to show his financially stability. Type of Fund* Details of A/c No. etc. Name of the Holder. Relationship with applicant Amount (Rs.) Saving Account 11119425248 Jitendrakumar Nandkishore Asati Own 6996897.21 SBI TDA (FD) 32224203851 Jitendrakumar Nandkishore Asati Own 100000.00 SBI TDA (FD) 32224205848 Jitendrakumar Nandkishore Asati Own 98000.00 SBI TDR (FD) 32452545759 Jitendrakumar Nandkishore Asati Own 800000.00 SBI TDR (FD) 32452551648 Jitendrakumar Nandkishore Asati Own 400000.00 SBI TDR (FD) 32452544585 Jitendrakumar Nandkishore Asati Own 800000.00 PPF Account 11119562455 Jitendrakumar Nandkishore Asati Own 135067.33 SBI TDA (FD) 32224126347 Nandkishore Baldeoprasad Asati Father's 100000.00 SBI TDR (FD) 32452552450 Nandkishore Baldeoprasad Asati Father's 500000.00 SBI TDR (FD) 32452553191 Nandkishore Baldeoprasad Asati Father's 500000.00 SBI TDR (FD) 32452553816 Nandkishore Baldeoprasad Asati Father's 500000.00 PPF Account 11119562488 Nandkishore Baldeoprasad Asati Father's 274141.32 PPF Account 30346660824 Rishab Jitendra Asati Minor Son 348989.00 TOTAL 11553093/- 11. Petitioner at the time of interview has produced originals of all those accounts / TDR, except two. Those two FDRs, were worth Rs. 5 lacs each. Thus, even if those two deposits are ignored, petitioner had established his financial capacity by showing cash of Rs. 1,05,53,093/- available with him. This amount also satisfies the stipulation in the advertisement which we have already mentioned above i.e. Rs. 45 lacs + Rs. Those two FDRs, were worth Rs. 5 lacs each. Thus, even if those two deposits are ignored, petitioner had established his financial capacity by showing cash of Rs. 1,05,53,093/- available with him. This amount also satisfies the stipulation in the advertisement which we have already mentioned above i.e. Rs. 45 lacs + Rs. 19 lacs. 12. It is therefore, obvious that mere inability to produce two original FDRs of Rs. 5 lacs each, petitioner cannot be thrown out of zone of consideration. 13. The change in policy is the issue which now needs consideration. Communication dated 23.06.2014, forwarded by the Government of India to respondents shows that it contains a direction to cancel all cases of ROs/LPG Distributorship allotments only in cases where interviews, including original or rescheduled or arising out of established complaints, are pending as on said date. The respondents have been advised to take up all such locations afresh, as per extant policy in new system of draw of lots, by undertaking fresh process of selection. This communication, therefore, is not applicable where interviews have already been held. Here, respondent no.3 has already been interviewed. But, for erroneous rejection of claim of petitioner, petitioner also could have been interviewed on that date. Respondents therefore, cannot take advantage of their own error and claim that entire process must be set at knot, and they should be permitted to proceed under new policy. The respondents have therefore, to conduct interview of petitioner and thereafter to evaluate rival claims of respondent no.3 and petitioner in accordance with law. 14. Accordingly, we direct the respondents to arrange for and to interview petitioner and then to proceed further with the process of allotment as per policy prevailing prior to 23.06.2014. 15. In view of this, Writ Petition is partly allowed. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms. However in the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.