IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Special Appeal No. 91 of 2011 S mt. Sushma ...…………. appellant Versus Hindustan Petroleum Corporation & others ...…………. Respondents Mr. Pankaj Miglani, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Dinesh Gahtori, Advocate for respondent Nos. 1 & 2. Mr. Rajendra Dobhal, Sr. Advocate assisted by Mr. G.D. Joshi, Advocate for respondent No. 3. JUDGMENT Coram : Hon’ble Barin Ghosh, C. J. Hon’ble U.C. Dhyani, J. BARIN GHOSH, C.J. (Oral) Delay Condonation Application No. 5200 of 2011 There is no objection to the application for condonation of delay, in preferring the appeal. We considered the averments made in the application for condonation of delay in preferring the appeal. Being satisfied with the reasons furnished therein, we condone the delay of five days, in preferring the appeal. Special Appeal No. 91 of 2011 In the brochure, the following words were used “Credit worthiness certificate (Appendix A-2) from Scheduled Bank / Financial Institutions and / or expressing 2 willingness to extend loan if required.” There is no dispute that in Appendix A-2, it was indicated that the credit worthiness certificate must indicate the amount of credit worthiness of the person in whose favour the certificate would be issued. Appellant submitted certificates from Scheduled Banks, whereby Scheduled Banks expressed willingness to extend loan to the appellant, if required. In the event, appellant had discharged the obligations in terms of what had been provided in the brochure as quoted above, appellant was entitled to five marks. She was not accorded five marks, despite she having had submitted expression of willingness by Scheduled Banks to extend loan, if required. In the event, she had been given those five marks, she would have had been adjudged the best in terms of the criteria laid down. Because those five marks were not given to her, she became the second best, and as such lost the opportunity to establish the advertised filling station. In the writ petition, petitioner contended that she was unjustly not given those five points. The learned Single Judge, who dealt with the writ petition by the judgment under appeal, held that the credit worthiness certificate, as was given in the format in Appendix A-2 was required to be given, and the same having not been given, there was failure to discharge the obligation to furnish such credit worthiness certificate, and accordingly, there was no just reason to interfere with the decision not to grant five marks in relation to the same. In the appeal, the appellant has contended that the words within the quotation as above, give two options. One was to furnish a credit worthiness certificate in the 3 format of Appendix A-2, and the other was to give a certificate expressing willingness to extend loan if required, both from Scheduled Banks / Financial Institutions. This submission is based on the words “and / or” used in the sentence within the quotation as above. We are unable to accept this contention because the sentence, as quoted above, is to be read as a whole. There is no scope of issuing a credit worthiness certificate expressing willingness to extend loan, if required. According to the brochure it was not a must to obtain loan. The finance could be arranged by the applicant himself. In the circumstances, the words “and / or” used in the sentence quoted above, is superfluous. The requirement was to furnish a credit worthiness certificate, if loan was required to finance establishment of the filling station. A credit worthiness certificate could only be treated to be such a certificate, when the same certified the extent of credit worthiness of the person in whose favour the certificate was being issued. In other words to what extent credit would be made available to the person concerned. The certificates of the appellant did not indicate the same. Therefore, we are also of the view that there was no scope of interference with the decision not to award five marks to the appellant, for she had failed to submit a credit worthiness certificate. The appeal fails, and the same is dismissed. (U.C. Dhyani, J.) (Barin Ghosh, C.J.) 22.09.2011 Negi