CW 10791/08 //1// In the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan Jaipur Bench ** Civil Writ Petition No.10791/2008 Jai Prakash Versus Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. & Ors. Date of Order ::: 22/04/09 Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Rastogi Mr. RK Mathur, for petitioner Mr. Sudhanshu Kasliwal, for respondent IOC Mr. Ashok Gaur, for respondent No.3. Vide order dt.07/01/09, this Court observed to finally dispose of matter at admission stage; hence matter was finally heard at joint request. Instant petition has been filed by a freedom fighter assailing communication dt. 28/08/08 (Ann.9) whereby his application form for awarding LPG distributorship at Kotputli (Jaipur rural) against reserved category of freedom fighter was rejected by Indian Oil Corporation Ltd (“IOC”) (respondents) on the premise that necessary documents were not annexed with application form which was required to be completed at the time of its submission in terms & conditions of advertisement dt.03/11/07 (Ann.5). Respondent (IOC) & other Oil Companies issued common advertisement dt.03/11/07 (Ann.5) inviting applications on or before last date CW 10791/08 //2// 03/012/2007 from amongst candidates belonging to different categories including freedom fighter for awarding LPG distributorship in various categories at locations in State of Rajasthan. In pursuance whereof, petitioner & respondent NO.3 claiming themselves as freedom fighter & eligible applied for through their separate applications for allotment of retail out-let of IOC for Kotputli (Jaipur district). However, application of petitioner was rejected by respondents (IOC) vide letter dt.28/08/08 on the premise that he failed to enclose his affidavit Ann.A alongwith the application form which makes him ineligible from participating in process of selection initiated for award of LPG distributorship of IOCL at Kotputli under Freedom Fighter category. As per Cl.19 whereof, applicant should put serial number on all pages of application including attachments and sign on each page; and there was further rider that if form is incomplete in any respect, it shall be outrightly rejected without affording opportunity of hearing; taking note whereof, communication dt.28/08/08 (Ann.9) was made to petitioner rejecting his candidature due to his application form being incomplete. After rejection of form of petitioner, interviews took CW 10791/08 //3// place on 15/09/2008 and before person finally selected could be considered for grant of letter of intent, at this stage petitioner approached this Court and because of interim order passed on 27/09/08, respondents were restrained from finalising LPG distributorship at Kotputli, impugned in the instant petition. Counsel for petitioner submits that Annexure A (Affidavit) – reference whereof has been made in letter dt.28/08/08 (Ann.9) was very much enclosed alongwith his application form - a copy whereof has been placed on record as Annexure 8 – on the basis whereof, Counsel submits that stamp paper was purchased and duly attested on 30/11/07 while last date to submit application form was 03/12/07; as such there was no justification for the petitioner to withhold and not to enclose affidavit in original along with application form; in such circumstances, very premise on which respondents have rejected his candidature, is uncalled for and requires interference by this Court. Counsel further submits that petitioner submitted application form prior to last date 03/12/07, if the form was incomplete or there was any defect or deficiency, respondents were under obligation to send intimation to remove CW 10791/08 //4// such defect or deficiency, if any, at the earliest while in instant case, letter of rejection was sent on 28/08/08 (Ann.9) and immediately thereafter process was initiated in calling the applicants for interviews which took place on 15/09/08, in such circumstances, delay in communication of letter of rejection (Ann.9) has caused prejudice to him. In their reply, respondents (IOC) have seriously disputed about document (Ann.8) allegedly enclosed with application form of petitioner which was required to determine his eligibility; and that apart, it has further been averred that there was an alternative remedy available to petitioner, as referred to in advertisement dt.03/11/07 (Ann.5), under Cl.12 which relates to redressal of grievances if aggrieved,could have submitted representation or complaint to officer concerned within one month from the date of declaration of result. Counsel for respondents (IOC) however, placed for perusal Policy Circular No.65/02-2K4 dt.11/02/2004 which provides procedure for handling of grievances/complaints with regard to selection of dealers/distributors; and taking note whereof, Counsel submits that if at all petitioner was aggrieved in regard to rejection CW 10791/08 //5// of his candidature (Ann.9), he could have raised grievances in pursuance of policy Circular dt. 11/02/04 as per which factual disputes could have been considered after examining the record. Counsel for affected respondent NO.3 further submits that there was no fault on part of respondent NO.3 but he is a sufferer because of interim order passed by this Court, and if one fails to fulfill conditions as required under advertisement (Ann.5), may be deliberate or otherwise, no justification is required to examine such form and it deserves to be out- rightly rejected in terms of advertisement (Ann.5); inasmuch as if petitioner failed to enclosed relevant document (Ann.A.-Notorised Affidavit) which was supposed to be submitted along with application form, which alone determines the eligibility of applicant in further participation of process of selection for award of LPG distributorship in question, no error was committed by respondent-IOC in rejecting application form of the petitioner. I have considered rival contentions of Counsel for both the parties and with their assistance, examined material on record. Advertisement dt.03/11/07 (Ann.5) was jointly issued by Public Sector Oil Corporation CW 10791/08 //6// including respondents-IOC for appointment of LPG distributorship at various locations in State of Rajasthan including Kotputli (Jaipur district) under different category including Freedom Fighter – in pursuance whereof, petitioner & respondent NO.3 claiming themselves as eligible applied for LPG distributorship at Kotputli (Jaipur district) in the category of freedom fighter before last date 03/12/2007. There was a condition incorporated specifically in Cl.19 of advertisement (Ann.5), being relevant for the purpose, ad infra: “19. General: (a) The company reserves the right to cancell/withdraw/amend this advertisement or extend the due date at the sole discretion without assigning any reason. (b) Application for LPF distributorship can be submitted on a plain paper hand written or typed as per formal given in the advertisement. No addition/deletion /alteration will be permitted in the application once it is submitted. Applicant should serial number all pages of the application including attachments and sign on each page. (c) Applications received after the cut-off date including postal delay and those without accompanying valid documents including application free or incomplete in any respect will not be considered and no correspondence will CW 10791/08 //7// be entertained by respective Oil Company in such cases whatsoever. (d) All affidavits have to submitted in original alongwith the application.” Thus, from Cl.19(b) (supra), it clearly emerges that once application form is submitted by applicant, no addition/deletion or alteration was permissible at a later stage in application form and a duty was casted upon applicant to serial number on all pages of application including attachment and signature on each page, and as per Cl.19(c) (supra), if form is incomplete in any respect, it will not be considered and no further correspondence would be entertained by respective Oil Co., in such cases whatsoever. In instant case, petitioner submitted application form before last date 03/12/2007 but one important document viz. Ann.A (Notorised Affidavit) as per advertisement (Ann.5) being required to be accompanied with application form, was not submitted by him. Original record was produced before this Court for perusal, which also discloses that in place of “affidavit” being required to be accompanied with application form in the format prescribed in Ann.A, there was a blank paper attached to application form of petitioner; inasmuch as CW 10791/08 //8// enclosures attached by petitioner alongwith his application were neither signed nor there was pagination on each paper which were required to be done while submitting application in terms of Cl.19 (supra) of advertisement (Ann.5). In circumstances (supra), once form of petitioner was found incomplete, as is evident from original record placed for perusal during arguments, respondents-IOC could not be said to be unjustified in rejecting application form of petitioner in terms of Cl.19(supra) of advertisement (Ann.5). As regards submission made by Counsel for petitioner that petitioner had submitted requisite affidavit (Ann.8) alongwith form, suffice is to say that it was disputed by respondents-IOC and such disputed facts could not be looked into by this Court in a limited scope of judicial review under Art.226 of Constitution of India. But, to settle the issue keeping in view its nature, this Court considered it appropriate to call for the record for its satisfaction and on its perusal with the assistance of respondents' Counsel, it revealed that in place of “affidavit”, there was a plain paper being accompanied with application form, on which members of the Committee put their CW 10791/08 //9// initials; and that apart, there is neither pagination nor documents accompanied with form were signed by petitioner; in such circumstances, there cannot be any dispute that necessary documents which petitioner was supposed to enclose alongwith his form was certainly missing and that was one of the determinative factor to hold applicant eligible with respect to his participation in the process of selection for allotment of LPG distributorship in question in terms of advertisement (Ann.5). As regards further submission made by Counsel that there was delay in communication of rejection (Ann.9), suffice it to say that alleged delay in no manner has caused prejudice to petitioner as further process was initiated by respondents (IOC) only after communication of decision to him and thus the delay if any would not be held to be fatal. Consequently, writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. (Ajay Rastogi), J. K.Khatri/p.9/10791CW08Apr22IOC.doc