IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR MONDAY, THE 1ST MARCH 2010 / 10TH PHALGUNA 1931 WP(C).No. 3093 of 2010(J) ------------------------------------ PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- JAI KURIAN,S/O.KURIAKOSE,AGED 40, THELAKKATTU HOUSE,KULAPPARACHAL.P.O,SANTHANPARA, IDUKKI DISTRICT-685619. BY ADV.MR.S.SREEKUMAR MR.P.MARTIN JOSE MR.P.PRIJITH MR.S.VAIDYANATHAN RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD, COCHIN DIVISIONAL OFFICE,PANAMPALLY AVENUE, PANAMPILLY NAGAR,KOCHI-36. 2. SENIOR DIVISIONAL RETAIL SALES MANAGER, COCHIN DIVISION OFFICE,INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD, COCHIN DIVISIONAL OFFICE,PANAMPALOLY AVENUE, PANAMPILLY NAGAR,KOCHI-36. BY ADVS.MR.E.K.NANDAKUMAR, MR.A.K.JAYASANKAR NAMBIAR, MR.K.JOHN MATHAI, MR.P.BENNY THOMAS, MR.P.GOPINATH, MR.V.J.ANAND. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: tss T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) No. 3093 of 2010-J - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 1st day of March, 2010. JUDGMENT The petitioner responded to the notification issued by the respondents inviting applications for allotment of retain outlet (petrol pump dealership for Kissan Seva Kendra), in Rajakumari, Idukki District. Ext.P1 is the copy of the brochure published. Ext.P2 is the copy of the application submitted by him and Ext.P3 is the nativity certificate produced by him along with the application. The petitioner is the only applicant. Later, the petitioner was informed by the second respondent as per Ext.P4 that his application was found ineligible since he has not produced the nativity certificate issued by the Tahsildar along with the application and accordingly, the petitioner produced Ext.P5 residence certificate along with Ext.P6 representtion. As the respondents have chosen to reject the application, this writ petition has been filed seeking to quash Ext.P4. 2. The respondents have filed a counter affidavit and the petitioner has filed a reply affidavit also, producing various materials. 3. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that even going by the nativity certificate, it is clear that he is a native of Idukki wpc 3093 /2010 2 District and this is supported by the certificate Ext.P5. In all the documents produced by the petitioner, it can be seen that various details of the petitioner including residential address, location of the properties, etc. are evident. Therefore, there cannot be a dispute that he is a resident of the particular place and if that be so, he has satisfied all the conditions provided for the grant of outlet. It is submitted that assuming that the petitioner has produced a nativity certificate earlier, instead of residence certificate, that is immaterial since he is a native of Idukki District as well as a resident of the same district. According to him, Ext.P3 certificate itself is sufficient to prove that he is a resident of the village. 4. By relying upon the terms of the contract, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents submitted that what is emphasised is the production of a certificate showing residence and not a nativity certificate. Any such certificates produced at a later point of time, cannot be considered, especially in the light of the judgment rendered by this Court in W.P.(C) No.33720/2009 wherein in similar circumstances, it was held that the production of mandatory residence certificate is important and after the last date of receipt of application, the parties cannot be allowed to supplement the same. 5. It is evident from Ext.P3 that what is produced is a nativity wpc 3093 /2010 3 certificate and what is required under the relevant entry in the application format is a copy of the residence certificate. Therefore, it is evident that what is produced by the petitioner is not the certificate showing residence. 6. The question whether other documents could be relied upon to show that the petitioner is a resident, etc. is not important, in the light of the fact that the petitioner did not produce the residence certificate, initially. Of course, the theory of substantial compliance could be invoked under certain circumstances. But herein, the last date for submission of the application was 29.9.2009. The notification also required that the applicant should be a resident of the district where the location is notified. Clause 10(d) of the notification provides that after the last date for submission of applications, no additional document or documentary evidence not submitted along with the application, would be permitted to be submitted. This is quite important. Evidently, marks are being awarded for various qualifications. Of course, herein the petitioner alone is the applicant, but still there cannot be any relaxation of the conditions which are mandatory. These aspects have been considered in Annexure B judgment rendered in similar and identical circumstances. Therein also, the petitioner was the only applicant. The certificate of residence was not enclosed, which was later produced. What was produced was the nativity wpc 3093 /2010 4 certificate alone within the stipulated time. After assessing various aspects, it was held in para 5 thus: “Further, clause (d) of paragraph 10 of Ext.P2 stipulates that no document which is not produced along with the application will be received or acted upon. Therefore, on the terms of Ext.P2, Ext.P1 residence certificate cannot be accepted and acted upon as it was not one submitted along with the application. In any case, the said document was not produced before the last date, viz. 29.9.2009. The terms and conditions set out in Ext.P2 do not empower the tendering authority or any superior officer to permit rectification of defects in applications. If such power is conceded to the tendering authority or any superior officer, it can lead to misuse and abuse of that power. The stipulation in the notification that documents which are not produced along with the application will not be looked into and acted upon cannot therefore be said to be arbitrary or irrational. The petitioner who did not satisfy the terms and conditions set out in Ext.P2 cannot therefore compel the respondents to act on her application which was otherwise invalid. The mere fact that no one else had applied pursuant to Ext.P2 for appointment as Kissan Seva Kendra Dealer in Kakkoor village cannot therefore be a ground to direct the respondents to act on the petitioner's application.” Herein also, the situation is identical. The additional document was not produced before the last date prescribed. They cannot look into the wpc 3093 /2010 5 documents which are not produced along with the application. I respectfully agree with the view taken by the learned Single Judge in Annexure B judgment. The stipulation in clause (d) of para 10 of the notification is evidently made to avoid any abuse of power in such cases. 7. Therefore, herein also, as the petitioner has only produced Ext.P3 along with the application, the crucial certificate of residence being absent, he cannot contend for the position that his application has to be treated as valid for all purposes. Therefore, the writ petition is dismissed. It is made clear that if the respondents issue a fresh notification, the dismissal of the writ petition will not debar the petitioner from applying afresh. No costs. (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) kav/