IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Letters Patent Appeal No.1159 of 2011 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 13196 of 2009 With Interlocutory application No. 7171 of 2011 In Letters Patent Appeal No. 1159 of 2011 ====================================================== 1. M/S Indian Oil Corporation Limited, Scope Bhawan, Lodhi Road, New Delhi, through its Chairman/Chief Managing Director. 2. Senior Area Manager, Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., Marketing Division (Eastern Region), Indane Area Office, 1st Floor, Shahi Bhawan, Exhibition Road, Patna-800001 .... .... Respondents/Appellants Versus 1. Raj Kumar Jha, S/O Sri Sadanand Jha, R/O Ward village & P.O.- Pagra, P.S.- Dalsingh Sarai, Distt.- Samastipur (Bihar). ......... …. Writ petitioner /Respondent 1st Set. 2. The Union of India through the Cabinet Secretary, Central Secretariat, New Delhi - 110001 3. The Secretary, Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas, Bikaji Kama Place, Ring Road, New Delhi – 110001. .... .... Respondents/Respondents 2nd Set. ====================================================== Appearance : For the Appellant/s : Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha & Mr. Amlesh Kumar Verma, Advocates. For the Respondent no. 1 : Mr. B.N.Sinha ‘Suman’ Mr. Abhay Shankar Singh, Advocates. For the Respondent/Intervener: Mr. Sanjay Singh and Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Singh, Advocates. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA PRASAD VERMA ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) 5 16-12-2011 Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 28th January 2010 passed by the learned single Judge in above CWJC No. 13196 of 2009, the respondent M/s Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.(hereinafter referred to as ‘the Corporation’) has preferred this Appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent. The matter at dispute is the LPG distributorship Patna High Court LPA No.1159 of 2011 (5) dt.16-12-2011 2 / 4 2 advertised by the Corporation on 19th January 2009. On 19th January 2009 the Corporation published a public notice declaring its intention to appoint LPG distributors at various locations specified therein, one of them being at Begusari. The petitioner, one Raj Kumar Jha applied for grant of LPG distributorship at Begusarai. The application made by the writ petitioner was not in conformation with the terms stated in the public notice. His application was, therefore, not considered along with the other applications. Feeling aggrieved, the writ petitioner filed above CWJC No. 13196 of 2009 to challenge the action of the Corporation in rejecting his application at the outset. Petition was contested by the Corporation. According to the Corporation the public notice required filing of an affidavit in ‘format-A’ by the applicant declaring that the applicant had never been convicted for any charge; no charge had been framed by any court of law for any criminal offence involving moral turpitude or an economic offence. While making such affidavit, the writ petitioner did not refer to the words ‘any court of law’. He tried to improve that defect by making another affidavit and submitting it later. According to the Corporation the general terms and conditions of the advertisement specifically banned any addition/ deletion/alteration once the application was submitted. The submission of affidavit made in conformation of the requirement on a later date was of no consequence. The learned single Judge has upheld the claim of the writ petitioner. In the opinion of the learned single Judge the defence raised by the Corporation was hyper technical. The error in the affidavit was a typographical error. It could not have been held against the applicant-writ petitioner. Patna High Court LPA No.1159 of 2011 (5) dt.16-12-2011 3 / 4 3 Feeling aggrieved the Corporation has preferred this Appeal. Learned Advocate Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha has appeared for the Corporation. He has taken us through the proforma affidavit and the general terms and conditions of the advertisement. He has submitted that the decision of the Corporation was in consonance with the terms and conditions of the advertisement. The learned single Judge ought not to have interfered with the same. Learned Advocate Mr. Abhay Shankar Singh has appeared for the respondent-the writ petitioner. He has submitted that the only error the writ petitioner made was instead of ‘U;k;ky;’ he mentioned ‘dk;kZy;’ in his affidavit. The mistake was later rectified and a fresh affidavit in consonance with the proforma affidavit was filed on 30th September 2009 before the applications were considered and final selections were made. Learned Advocate Mr. Sanjay Singh has appeared for the intervener. He has submitted that the impugned order dated 28th January 2010 has been obtained by the writ petitioner by making misleading statement. He has particularly invited our attention to the observation made by the learned single Judge to the effect that no final decision had been taken and that the result had not been declared. He has submitted that the interview was held on 8th October 2009. After the interview, on the same day a panel was prepared. The intervener was at Sl. No. 1 in the said panel. He has legitimate right to the LPG distributorship. We are of the opinion that the Corporation being the State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution is supposed to act fairly, reasonably and uniformly and has to be objective in its approach. Once the standard is set out in the Patna High Court LPA No.1159 of 2011 (5) dt.16-12-2011 4 / 4 4 advertisement, the Corporation has to adhere to the said standard without any variation. In case, the Corporation allows any alteration the same will amount to subjective approach which is frowned upon by the Courts time and again. To remain objective the Corporation is required to adhere to the standards mentioned in the advertisement. In the present case, it is not in dispute that the application made by the writ petitioner was not in conformation with the requirements mentioned in the advertisement. In our opinion, the Corporation was justified in rejecting the application of the writ petitioner. The learned single Judge ought not to have interfered with the decision of the Corporation which was taken in consonance with the terms and conditions contained in the advertisement. Besides; may be, in the present case it was a mere typographical error. However, there might be a case of mischief or misrepresentation also. It is difficult to draw a line where an error ends and a mischief or misrepresentation begins. The best way to avoid discrimination is strict adherence to the standards mentioned in the advertisement. For the aforesaid reasons we hold that the Corporation was justified in rejecting the application of the writ petitioner. The Appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment and order dated 28th January 2010 passed by the learned single Judge in CWJC No. 13196 of 2009 is set aside. CWJC No. 13196 is dismissed. Interlocutory application stands disposed of. Sujit/- (R.M. Doshit, CJ) (Birendra Prasad Verma, J)