Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 1519 (ALL)

Jasraj Singh v. Union of India

2022-09-20

RAJENDRA KUMAR IV, SURYA PRAKASH KESARWANI

body2022
JUDGMENT : Heard Sri Arun K. Singh-I, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Nishant Mehrotra, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 2 and 3. 2. This writ petition has been filed praying for the following relief : ''(i) Issue appropriate writ, order or direction quashing the order dated 15.3.2017 passed by respondent No. 3. (ii) Issue appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus, directing the respondent authorities to declare the petitioner, eligible for draw of lots for the selection of retail outlet dealership of H.P.C.L. (Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited) at Village Nanheda Aliharpur/Devipura (On Kailsha Road), Amroha.'' 3. Briefly stated, undisputed facts of the present case are that pursuant to an advertisement published in widely circulated newspapers including ''Times of India'' on 11.10.2014 for setting up retail outlet at various locations including the said location, i.e. Village Nanhera Aliharpur/Devipura (on Kailsa Road), District Amroha, the petitioner applied for retail outlet vide Application dated 5.12.2014. Alongwith his application, he filed a Residence Certificate No. 4032, dated 19.12.2007 said to have been issued by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Amroha, Jyotiba Phule Nagar. As per para-4 of the brochure dated 9.10.2014 for selection of Dealers for Regular and Rural Retail outlets one of the eligibility criteria for individual-applicants was that he should be resident of India as on the date of affidavit and resident of the concerned district and residence certificate issued within previous six months of the date of affidavit, will be treated as valid residence-certificate. The residence certificate was to be obtained in Form ''Appendix-I'', which contained a note as under : ''Note: Residence certificate should be issued within previous within previous six months of the date of affidavit for dealership in the prescribed format herein will only be treated as valid residence certificate.'' 4. Since the petitioner has filed a residence certificate dated 19.12.2007, therefore, the respondent corporation issued letters to the petitioner to provide copy of residence certificate as provided in the brochure. In this regard, the respondent-corporation has also issued a letter dated 28.7.2016 to the petitioner pointing out certain discrepancies including the residence certificate. Paragraph-3 of the letter of respondent-corporation addressed to the petitioner is reproduced below : ''3. Residence certificate attached to your application is older than six months from date of affidavit (appendix XA). In this regard, the respondent-corporation has also issued a letter dated 28.7.2016 to the petitioner pointing out certain discrepancies including the residence certificate. Paragraph-3 of the letter of respondent-corporation addressed to the petitioner is reproduced below : ''3. Residence certificate attached to your application is older than six months from date of affidavit (appendix XA). Please provide same, issued within six month of date of affidavit (appendix XA) attached to your application but not later to it.'' 5. Since the residence certificate submitted by the petitioner was not complying with the conditions of the aforesaid brochure, therefore, application of the petitioner was rejected. The petitioner challenged the order of rejection by filing Writ-C No. 3236 of 2017, which was disposed of by order dated 31.1.2017 directing the respondent-corporation to decide the representation of the petitioner dated 5.12.2016. Pursuant to the aforesaid order of this Court, the petitioner submitted a representation dated 20.2.2017, which has been decided by the impugned order dated 15.3.2017 holding as under : ''It is worth noting that the Residence Certificate attached by you with your application was issued in the year 1997 and the Residence Certificate submitted by you, after intimating you about the deficiency in your application, is dated 19.8.2016. The Affidavit annexed with the application form, submitted by you was signed on 4.12.2014. Thus, as per Dealership Selection Guidelines 2014, the Residence Certificate issued in 1997 and on 19.8.2016 could not be considered by us, as they were not issued within previous six (6) months from the date of Affidavit i.e. 4.12.2014, in the present case. In view of the Residence Certificates dated 12.8.1997 and 19.8.2016, which cannot be considered, as the same is in contradiction with the requirement of Dealership Selection Guidelines 2014. Thus, in compliance with the judgment, the order of the Hon'ble High Court at Allahabad passed in writ petition No. 3236 of 2017 (Jasraj Singh v. Union of India and others), your representation dated 5.12.2016 is herewith rejected and disposed off accordingly. Alongwith your representation dated 05/12/2016 you have submitted a DD of Rs.1000. Since your representation is against the cancellation of your candidature, we are hereby returning the DD.'' 6. Aggrieved with the aforesaid order dated 15.3.2017 passed by the respondent-corporation, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition. 7. Alongwith your representation dated 05/12/2016 you have submitted a DD of Rs.1000. Since your representation is against the cancellation of your candidature, we are hereby returning the DD.'' 6. Aggrieved with the aforesaid order dated 15.3.2017 passed by the respondent-corporation, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the defect as pointed out by the respondent-corporation vide letter dated 28.7.2016, was cured by the petitioner on 19.8.2016 and, therefore, there remained no discrepancy. He, therefore, submits that the impugned order passed by the respondent corporation is arbitrary and deserves to be quashed. He further submits that in the brochure, it is provided that the documents may be submitted even subsequently with respect to information contained in the application form. Therefore, the submission of the residence certificate by the petitioner dated 19.8.2016, cannot be treated to be adverse to the petitioner to reject his application. 8. Learned counsel for the respondent-corporation and learned counsel for the respondent No. 4 supports the impugned order. 9. We have carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsels for the parties and perused the records of the writ petition. 10. Undisputedly, the petitioner has not filed copy of residence of a period within six months prior to the date of his affidavit/application dated 5.12.2014. The residence certificate accompanying the application was 19.2.2007. As per para-4(ii) of the brochure for Selection of Dealers for Regular and Rural Retail outlets dated 9.10.2014 read with Appendix-I, the residence certificate issued within previous six months of the date of affidavit for dealership in the prescribed format will only be treated as valid residence certificate. The letter dated 28.7.2016 written by the respondent-corporation to the petitioner also specifically required the petitioner to provide residence certificate issued within six months of the date of affidavit attached to his application but not later to it. Thus, the letter of the respondent corporation has also required the submission of residence certificate which complies with the conditions of eligibility in Para 4(ii) of the aforesaid brochure dated 9.10.2014. The petitioner could not submit the residence certificate as was required to be submitted in terms of the eligibility conditions contained in Para-4 of the brochure. The petitioner submitted a residence certificate dated 19.8.2016 which is much subsequent to his application/affidavit filed before the respondent-corporation. The petitioner could not submit the residence certificate as was required to be submitted in terms of the eligibility conditions contained in Para-4 of the brochure. The petitioner submitted a residence certificate dated 19.8.2016 which is much subsequent to his application/affidavit filed before the respondent-corporation. Therefore, the impugned order dated 18.3.2017 passed by the respondent-corporation cannot be said to suffer from any manifest error of law or fact. The impugned order is not in conflict with the conditions provided in the brochure for selection of Dealers for Regular and Rural Retail outlets dated 9.10.2014. Therefore, we do not find any good reason to interfere with the impugned order. 11. For all the reasons afore-stated, we do not find any merit in this writ petition. Consequently, the writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed.