1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 10.11.2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.RAMASUBRAMANIAN W.P.(MD)NO.12674 of 2011 and M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2011 R.Kavitha ... Petitioner Versus The Senior Area Manager, Indian Oil Corporation Limited, Indane Area Office, No.2, Race Course Road, Chokkikular, Madurai - 625 002. ... Respondent PRAYER : Writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for records relating to the impugned order passed by the respondent in his proceedings REF:MAO/PAL/11 dated 15.09.2011 and quash the same as illegal and consequently directing the respondent to permit the petitioner to participate in the selection process for award of LPG Distributorship at Palani Location, Dindigul District under Open (W) category. For Petitioner : Mr.B.Saravanan 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.B.Saravanan, 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 Palani, Dindigul District under the open category. The advertisements made it clear that detailed guidelines for selection were available https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 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 16.07.2010. 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 respondents 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 impugned order is very vague, the real reason for the rejection of the application of the petitioner is that she did not copy the affidavit as per Annexure 1, but left out 2 columns. The affidavit contains certain declarations in a prescribed format. All of them may not apply to all candidates. Therefore, as per the instructions issued by the respondent, the candidates are supposed to type out the whole format and score off whatever is not applicable to them. Instead, a few candidates have prepared the affidavit only with those columns applicable to them. This cannot be taken to be a serious mistake. 6. As a matter of fact, there is some confusion in the printed format of the affidavit itself. As pointed out earlier, Annexure-A which provides the format in which an affidavit is to be furnished by an applicant, contains several declarations. The third declaration that a candidate is supposed to make, is "that I have passed Matriculation/SSLC or equivalent examination from recognised board in the year YYY". But unfortunately, at the bottom of Annexure-A, the respondents have indicated the following: "Strike off whatever is not applicable. (@ Delete these if not applicable)". Since the declaration under paragraph 3 also contains the mark "@", the indication provided at the bottom of Annexure-A to strike off whatever is not applicable, misleads one to think that what is indicated as against "@" is also liable to be deleted. 7. In view of the above confusion in the manner in which Annexure-A has been formatted, the mistake committed by the petitioner cannot be taken to be very serious in this regard. 8. There is one more reason for me to hold that these are not material omissions. The petitioner has enclosed all the certificates https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 relating to her educational qualifications including the qualifications relating to S.S.L.C, U.G. and P.G.degrees. A person who has enclosed all the certificates which speak for themselves need not burk any information. In the light of the certificates enclosed by the petitioner, if we look at the omissions made by her, they are not very material. 9. As pointed out, the impugned order itself is not very clear. I have extracted the impugned order in a previous paragraph. The statement in the impugned order that affidavit was not as per the format i.e., "removed clauses pertaining to eligibility or pertaining to evaluation" itself does not actually indicate the mistakes committed by the petitioner. The mistakes in the impugned order, if capable of being overlooked, the omissions committed by the petitioner are also capable of being overlooked. 10. Mr.K.Muraleedharan, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents 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. 11. 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. But the case on hand is not one of suppressing of any fact, much less a material fact. Therefore, the respondent was wrong in rejecting the candidature of the petitioner. 12. 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 take place only on 24.11.2011. Apart from the preliminary scrutiny of applications, no further progress has been made by the respondents 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 13. 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, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. Sd/- Deputy Registrar(Writs) /True Copy/ Assistant Registrar To The Senior Area Manager, Indian Oil Corporation Limited, Indane Area Office, No.2, Race Course Road, Chokkikulam, Madurai - 625 002. vsm ssk/11.11.2011 /2c -4p/- W.P.(MD)NO.12674 of 2011 10.11.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/