1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 04.11.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.CHANDRU Writ Petition (MD)No.11460 of 2011 Valluvan ... Petitioner Vs. The Senior Area Manager,(Marketing Division) Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., Indane Area Office, No.2, Race Course Road, Chokkikulam, Madurai. ... Respondent Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the impugned order vide REF:MAO/KKD/11, dated 15.09.2011 on the file of the respondent and quash the same and consequently direct the respondent to call the petitioner for interview relating to the LPG Distributorship at Karaikudi under open category in serial No.36 in the advertisement published in Dinakaran on 15.06.2010. For Petitioner : Mr.R.Venkateswaran For Respondents : Mr.K.Muraleedharan ORDER The petitioner has filed the present writ petition seeking to set aside the order dated 15.09.2011 issued by the respondent Indian Oil Corporation Limited represented by the Senior Area Manager, Indane Area office at Madurai. By the impugned order, it was informed the petitioner that he was ineligible to award distributorship as the affidavit filed by him was not as per the format regarding the removed clauses pertaining to eligibility or pertaining to evaluation, it was incomplete. Challenging the said rejection, the present writ petition came to be filed. 2.When the matter came up 30.09.2011, this Court ordered notice of motion. On notice from this Court, the respondent has filed a counter affidavit dated 04.11.2011. 3.It is seen from the records that pursuant to a newspaper advertisement published in the Dinakaran dated 15.07.2010, the petitioner made an application for the grant of retail outlet dealership for the L.P.G along with the application form. He has enclosed necessary enclosure including fee for processing, proof of age, proof of educational qualification and affidavit as per the format in A,B,C and D. 4.On scrutinising the application format, the scrutiny committee found that the affidavit filed in support of the application in affidavit Form-A was not in complete shape. Therefore, his application was rejected. 5.The petitioner challenging the said rejection contended that while preferring an affidavit he had removed the clauses which are not relevant https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 to him and included which are regarding the eligibility of the petitioner and with reference to the non furnishing of the information in the affidavit regarding his educational qualification had acquired only on a bona fide mistake that he had already enclosed the necessary qualification certificate that of B.Com., Degree. The affidavit which is sought to be filled up was not a document which can decide the eligibility of the petitioner and there was no intention of omitting or avoiding to mention of any relevant facts. The copy of the affidavit filed by the petitioner was counter signed by a notary public, dated 15.07.2010 and also enclosed in the typed set. 6.It is a stand of the respondent that in the counter affidavit in paragraph 7 that the affidavit filed by him is not in accordance with the advertisement as expected by the scrutiny committee. 7.A perusal of the affidavit filed by the petitioner does not show that there is no deviation from the requirement. What is sought to be urged was that the entire format will have to be typed by the petitioner and he should sign the same after scoring out whatever is not applicable to him and therefore, the pro-forma affidavit cannot be censored by the petitioner on the basis of the what was relevant for his case. 8.This Court surprised the respondent should come out with such a contention that an affidavit by his sworn statement regarding the clauses which are within the knowledge of the admission of the deponent and it is unnecessary to him to include which clause which do not apply and removed those paragraphs. It is only satisfied the respondent that if the affidavit was in the same format as was published in the newspaper. This only shows that a mechanical application of mind on the part of the respondent and does not inspire any admiration from this Court. 9.Bothsides parallely submitted that the subject matter of the writ petition is squarely covered by an order of this Court in W.P.(MD)No.11895 of 2011 in R.Amuthavalli Vs.The Senior Area Manager, dated 29.10.2011, V.RAMASUBRAMANIAN,J in an identical contention in Paragraphs 12 and 13 observed as follows: 12.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, as pointed out earlier, already enclosed the certificates relating to the educational qualifications along with her 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. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 13.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". 10.In the light of the above, the petitioner is also entitled for the similar relief as was granted in the earlier writ petition. Hence, the writ petition stands allowed as prayed for. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. SD ASST REGISTRAR ( AE ) /TRUE COPY/ SUB ASST REGISTRAR sms To The Senior Area Manager,(Marketing Division) Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., Indane Area Office, No.2, Race Course Road, Chokkikulam, Madurai. 1CC TO MR. R. VENKATESWARAN, ADVOCATE, SR: 38072: DM:2011:NOV:04:: Writ Petition (MD)No.11460 of 2011 04.11.2011 3P;3C:: https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/