CWP No. 10627 of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 10627 of 2009 Date of Decision: 6.4.2010 Balraj Singh Dayal ....Petitioner. Versus Executive Magistrate/Tehsildar, Barnala and others ...Respondents. CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL. PRESENT: Mr. Karan Nehra, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. S.K. Bhanot, Additional Advocate General, Punjab, for respondents No.1 to 5. Mr. Ashish Kapoor, Advocate for respondents No.2 to 4. AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. In this petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order dated 2.4.2009 (Annexure P-5) whereby respondent No.4 has rejected his application for the allotment of the Petrol Pump on the ground that he has not attached the residence certificate. Put shortly, as per averments in the petition, the facts of the case are that respondent No.2 issued advertisement inviting applications for the allotment of petrol pump specifying the site/place at Sr. No. 383 at Thikriwal Road, Barnala. The same was published in the newspaper dated 25.2.2009 (Annexure P-1). The petitioner submitted an application on 18.3.2009 (Annexure P-2) before the Tehsildar for CWP No. 10627 of 2009 -2- issuance of the residence certificate. The Tehsildar issued the residence certificate No. 420 dated 19.3.2009 in favour of the petitioner (Annexure P-3). The petitioner being an eligible candidate submitted his application (Annexure P-4) complete in all respects along with the residence certificate issued by the Tehsildar to respondents No.2 to 4. They after scrutinizing the application of the petitioner, issued a letter dated 2.4.2009 (Annexure P-5) rejecting the application on the ground that the residence certificate (Annexure P-3) which was attached along with the application was issued in favour of the father of the petitioner, namely, Charan Jeet Dayal and not in the name of the petitioner. The petitioner submitted an application dated 13.4.2009 (Annexure P-6) before the Tehsildar, Barnala-respondent No.1 regarding the verification of the residence certificate (Annexure P-3) issued by his office. The Tehsildar issued a specific clarification that the certificate was issued to the petitioner and was entered at Sr. No. 420 dated 19.3.2009 and the same was true and correct. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a detailed letter attaching therewith the copy of the clarification issued by respondent No.1 before the respondent-Corporation for reconsideration of his application. On 17.4.2009, the respondent-Corporation refused to entertain the request of the petitioner. The petitioner filed a detailed representation dated 17.6.2009 before the respondent-Corporation along with the certificates and the clarification issued by the Tehsildar. The respondent-Corporation without deciding the representation of the petitioner started the interview process. Hence, the present writ petition. Notice of motion was issued. The respondents have filed CWP No. 10627 of 2009 -3- written statements controverting the averments made in the petition. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record with their assistance. Learned counsel for the petitioner while referring to the letters (Annexures P-5 and P-6) has stated that the certificate issued in the name of his father was issued to the petitioner and the same being true and correct, his application has been rejected erroneously. A perusal of Annexure P-3 clearly shows that the residence certificate was issued in the name of Charanjit Singh Dayal (father of the petitioner) and not in the name of the petitioner. The residence certificate issued in the name of the father of the petitioner cannot be treated to be a residence certificate of the petitioner. Admittedly, one of the conditions as specified in the advertisement was not complied with as no residence certificate issued in the name of the petitioner was filed and, therefore, the respondent-Corporation rightly rejected the candidature of the petitioner for the allotment of the petrol pump. Accordingly, there is no merit in this writ petition and the same is hereby dismissed. April 6, 2010 (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) gbs JUDGE