1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 29.10.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.RAMASUBRAMANIAN Writ Petition(MD)No.11815 of 2011 and MP(MD)No.1 of 2011 R.Amuthavalli ... Petitioner Vs. The Senior Area Manager, (Marketing Division), Indian Oil Corporation, Indane Area 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 order vide Ref.MAO/TRUM/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 Thirumayam under SC (W) category in Serial No.32 in the advertisement published in Dinakaran on 15.06.2010. For Petitioner : Mr.D.Srinivasaraghavan For Respondent : Mr.K.Muraleedharan, 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 her application for the award of L.P.G. Distributorship was rejected. 2.Heard Mr.D.Srinivasaraghavan, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr.K.Muraleedharan, learned Standing Counsel for I.O.C., takes notice for the respondent. 3.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 Thirumayam in Pudukottai District under the category of Scheduled https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 Caste women. 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. 4.The petitioner submitted an application in response to those advertisements on 17.07.2010. But by the impugned order, dated 15.09.2011, the respondent informed the petitioner that her candidature was found to be not eligible. The reason stated by the respondent in the impugned communication was that the affidavit was not as per the format. Aggrieved by the rejection of her candidature, the petitioner has come up with the above writ petition. In order to understand the real grievance of the petitioner, it is necessary to extract the impugned order which is not sketchy but very short which 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". 5.Though the respondent has not filed a counter, the writ petition was taken up for disposal, in view of the fact that the dispute between the petitioner and the respondent is covered by a decision rendered by me in W.P.(MD)No.11147 of 2011 dated 20.10.2011. 6.Though the impugned order does not state very precisely the reason for rejection of the application of the petitioner, it is stated across the bar that the petitioner did not submit the notarized affidavit, in the format in which it was to be submitted. The format of the affidavit which is to be filed by all the aspirants, was provided by the respondent himself. In the affidavit, the petitioner is obliged to make certain declarations. The declaration under paragraph-3 of the affidavit relates to the qualification of Matriculation / SSC or equivalent examination. But there was a confusion about the filling up of paragraph-3 of the affidavit, since a footnote to the affidavit indicated that whatever was not applicable had to be struck off. Yet the petitioner filled up the same. 7.Unfortunately, the respondent has taken exception to the fact that the petitioner failed to score off, whatever was not applicable in the affidavit. Since the affidavit gave several alternatives, there was a requirement to strike off whatever was not applicable. But the petitioner did not meticulously strike off what was not applicable. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 8.But the details which were not scored off in the affidavit, were not very significant in nature. They were not very crucial for determining the eligibility of the petitioner. Therefore, the rejection of the candidature of the petitioner appears to be on a flimpsy ground. 9.As a matter of fact, I have myself come across three cases, relating to the same distributorship arising out of the same Notification. In all cases, the orders rejecting the application of the aspirants are identically worded, without giving any clarity. This shows that the respondent failed to put the applicants in exact terms as to their deficiencies. 10.A perusal of the copy of the application filed by the petitioner shows that the petitioner had filled up all relevant details in the application form. There is no dispute about the fact that the petitioner had also enclosed all the items indicated, at the end of the application form. The respondent does not dispute the eligibility of the petitioner to participate in the selection. Therefore, (1) when the petitioner had filled up the application form correctly furnishing all necessary information, (2) when the petitioner has admittedly enclosed all the necessary documents as required and (3) when the petitioner indisputably fulfils the eligibility criteria, the rejection of her application, is not well founded, especially for the reasons stated by the respondent. 11.Mr.K.Muraleedharan, 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, her application form was liable for rejection and that the same cannot be found fault with. 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 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 4 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. 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. 14.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 her for interview, if she is otherwise eligible for being called for interview. No costs. Consequently, M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2011 is closed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(A.S.) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To The Senior Area Manager, (Marketing Division), Indian Oil Corporation, Indane Area Office, No.2, Race Course Road, Chokkikulam, Madurai. +1cc to Mr.K.Muralidharan, Advocate, Sr.No.37192 +1cc to Mr.D.Srinivasaragagan, Advocate, Sr.No.37009 Writ Petition(MD)No.11815 of 2011 and MP(MD)No.1 of 2011 29.10.2011 km SMA/31.10.2011/4C/4P https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/