1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 4.11.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.RAMASUBRAMANIAN Writ Petition(MD)No.12499 of 2011 G.K.Jaya Umabathy ... Petitioner Vs. The Senior Area Manager, The Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. Madurai Divisional Office No.2, Race Course Road, Chokkikulam, Madurai. ... Respondent Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the impugned proceedings issued by the respondent herein in REf.MAO/288 B/11 dated 11.10.2011, quash the same, and further direct respondent herein to process the petitioner's application dated 19.7.2010 by conducting interview for the selection regarding the allotment of LPG Distributorship at Marthandam location in Kanyakumari District, and pass such further or other suitable order/Orders as this Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. For Petitioner : Mr.E.V.N.Siva For Respondent : Mr.K.Muralidharan, Standing Counsel for I.O.C O R D E R The petitioner has come up with the above writ petition, challenging an order by which his application for the award of L.P.G. Distributorship was rejected. 2.Heard Mr.E.V.N.Siva, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr.K.Muralidharan, learned Standing Counsel for I.O.C., takes notice for the respondent. 3. On 3.11.2011, when the Writ Petition came up for hearing, I directed the counsel for the petitioner to serve the papers on the counsel for the respondent. Today, the learned counsel for the respondent took notice. Since the issue raised in the Writ Petition is already covered by a couple of decisions I have rendered last week, I have taken up the Writ petition for disposal. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 4.The respondent issued advertisements in "The Hindu" and "Dinakaran" in their editions, dated 15.06.2010 for the award of L.P.G. distributorship for several areas including the area of Marthandam,Kanyakumari District under the open category. The advertisements made it clear that detailed guidelines for selection were available in a brochure at a particular web site on payment of Rs.50/- to the Indian Oil Corporation. 5. The petitioner has submitted an application on 19.7.2010. By an order dated 15.9.2011, the respondent rejected the application of the petitioner outright. The order dated 15.9.2011 reads as follows: Please refer to your application on the subject. We regret to inform you that your candidature has not been found to be eligible for award of subject distributorship as Affidavit is not as per the format i.e., removed clauses pertaining to eligibility or pertaining to evaluation. 6. Aggrieved by the said order and being unable to decipher the correct reason for the rejection of his application, the petitioner gave a representation dated 27.9.2011. In response, the respondent has issued a communication dated 11.10.2011. In brief, it is stated in the said communication dated 11.10.2011 that the petitioner had not given the details about Indian citizenship, age and minimum educational qualification in the affidavit. Aggrieved by the said communication, the petitioner is before this Court. 7. The copy of the application sent by the petitioner shows that as against Column No. 7.4, the petitioner has indicated his nationality to be Indian and he has also indicated that he is a resident of Nagercoil. In Column No.7.6, he has given the date of birth and age. In Column No. 9, the petitioner has given all the details about (1) S.S.C./Matric Qualification (2) Degree (3) Post Graduate Decree (4) Professional Degree (5) Additional Qualification. Therefore, it is clear that the petitioner has given all details in full in the application form. The list of enclosures indicated towards the end of the application form has also been sent by the petitioner along with the application. 8. The application requires that every person should send three affidavits as per the format indicated in Annexure-A , B and C. The impugned order of rejection shows that there was a problem with regard to the affidavit sent in the format in Annexure-A. 9.Annexure-A contains seven types of declarations. Some of them are required to be scored off. The said Annexure-A has been filled up by the petitioner and after deleting the clauses not applicable to him, he has submitted the affidavit in the format. 10. It appears that the applicants are required to type out even the portions to be deleted. Thereafter, the applicants are required to score off the portions not applicable. Instead of https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 typing the irrelevant portions and deleting them, the petitioner has not typed these in-applicable portions in the affidavit at all. But this cannot be a ground for rejection. This is not a mistake. Instead of typing the in-applicable columns and scoring them off, if a person had omitted to type them out, there is no suppression or misinformation or misleading information. 11. The nationality, the residential qualification, the age and educational qualification are all mentioned by the petitioner in the application form. They are supported by necessary certificates enclosed to the application form. Therefore, the mistake committed by the petitioner cannot really be regarded as a mistake, disqualifying him from participating in the selection. 12.Mr.K.Muralidharan, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent placed strong reliance upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shiv Kant Yadav Vs.Indian Oil Corporation and others reported in (2007) 3 MLJ 841. In that case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that when the requirement to disclose true and correct particulars in the application for dealership is not fulfilled, there is a violation of the declaration and hence, the cancellation of dealership cannot be interfered with. Therefore, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that when the petitioner was guilty of omissions and commissions in the filling up of the application form, his application form was liable for rejection and that the same cannot be found fault with. 13.But the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondent, cannot be applied to the facts of the present case. In the case before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, a person to whom dealership was awarded, was found guilty of suppression of material particulars relating to his annual income. The petitioner in that case was found guilty of suppression of material facts. When he took a stand that the misstatement in the application was not material, the same was rejected by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In other words, the case before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, arose out of a false declaration. The petitioner had, in this case, already enclosed the certificates relating to the educational qualifications along with his application. Therefore, there was no suppression in this case. Every omission need not amount to suppression or misstatement. Therefore, the respondent was wrong in rejecting the candidature of the petitioner. 14.It would have been a different matter if the petitioner had not come to Court in time. Again, it would have been different if events had overtaken the fate of the petitioner. Today, it is admitted that the interviews for the award of distributorship are scheduled to commence only from the second week of November 2011. Apart from the preliminary scrutiny of applications, no further progress has been made by the respondent for finalising the distributorship. Therefore, no prejudice will also be caused to the respondent by inviting the petitioner for the oral interview scheduled to be held from the second week of November 2011. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 4 15.In view of the above, the writ petition is allowed, the impugned order is set aside and the respondent is directed to consider the application of the petitioner and call him for interview, if he is otherwise eligible for being called for interview. No costs. Consequently, M.P.(MD)Nos.1 and of 2011 are closed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(R) /True Copy/ Sub-Assistant Registrar To The Senior Area Manager,The Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. Madurai Divisional OfficeNo.2, Race Course Road, Chokkikulam, Madurai. +One Cc to Mr.K.Muraleedharan, Advocate, SR.No.38077 ses rl/3c -11.11.2011 Writ Petition(MD)No.12499 of 2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/