CWP No. 22522 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH CWP No. 22522 of 2010 Date of decision August 4, 2011 Qutbuddin ....... Petitioner Versus Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd., and others ........Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN Present:- Mr. R. K. Malik, Senior Advocate with Mr. Vijay Dahiya, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Anil Malhotra, Advocate for respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Mr. Sarfraj Hussain, Advocate for respondent No.3. **** 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest? K. Kannan, J (oral). 1. The petitioner challenges the allotment of the contract of dealership as retail outlet of the petrol pump of the first respondent-Corporation awarded to the third respondent on the ground that he had better qualification but he was not even called for interview on 15.7.2010. The grievance of the petitioner is that when he was not called for interview, which was said to have taken place on 15.7.2010, he had applied for information under the RTI Act and that was when he was informed that the Corporation had taken the view that age proof had not CWP No. 22522 of 2010 2 been adduced by the petitioner. Along with the information supplied under the Act, he was also informed that the Corporation had claimed that they had informed the fact of rejection of his application through a registered letter dated 18.6.2010. The petitioner denied the receipt of such a registered letter specifically in para 3 of his petition to which the Corporation has again stated in the reply filed before this Court that they had sent the communication by registered post and do not make any specific denial about the averment of the petitioner that the letter was not conveyed to the petitioner. The issue of whether the despatch through a registered letter could result in any conclusive proof was considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in The General Clauses act that makes a presumption requires a proof in a case where the addressee pleads that there was no such communication through the registered post. It would require a proof in a case where the addressee pleads the non-receipt of such a letter. In this case, when there was a denial of such receipt, the onus of proof shifts to the Corporation to show that the letter had been actually delivered to the petitioner. Any registered letter affords proof of such a fact by securing appropriate details from the Post Office. The registered communication allows for register to be maintained that would contain the name of the person to whom it was delivered, the date of delivery etc., in the register maintained by the Post Office. I have already observed that there is not even a specific denial on what the petitioner contended in the writ petition by the Corporation any more than stating that they had despatched the communication through a registered post and registration receipt was also available. This, in my view, does not discharge onus as laid down by the Supreme Court in the case referred to above. 2. The counsel for the third respondent states that the letter of intent had also been issued in August, 2010 and that it would CWP No. 22522 of 2010 3 be grossly inequitable to challenge the allotment at this stage. If the petitioner had been guilty of laches, I would definitely take that to be an issue for upholding the objection raised by the third respondent. However, in this case, after securing the information from the Information Commission through an application under RTI Act in November, 2010, the petitioner has filed the writ petition on 15.12.2010. The petitioner cannot be faulted for what information was certainly available and despatched with his application form. The petitioner has produced the copy of the matriculation certificate that contains the date of birth and the Corporation admits receiving the certificate but wrongly discarded it as not affording proof of age. The petitioner is entitled to seek for consideration of his application. The respondent shall constitute an Interview Committee again and call the petitioner for interview on a date that might be fixed and take a fresh decision after conducting the interview and communicate the same to all the parties concerned. 3. The third respondent cannot plead any special equities especially in a case where the letter of intent did not proceed further and the Petrol Pump itself was not established on account of the dispute that arose through the challenge made in the Writ Petition. 4. The writ petition is allowed on the above terms. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE August 4, 2011 archana