THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No.13978 & 14958 of 2009 COMMON ORDER: The 1st respondent, Indian Oil Corporation, (for short the ‘Corporation’) issued a notification, inviting applications for selection of LPG Distributors, for various places, including Nalgonda town. Individuals, agencies, and partnership firms are eligible to apply. The petitioners in W.P.No.13978 of 2009 constituted themselves as a partnership firm, and submitted applications. Applicants, who fulfill the conditions, were called for interview. Sri B.Venkata Ramana, the 1st petitioner in W.P.No.13978 of 2009 was placed at Sl.No.1 in the list of selected candidates. However, through oral communication dated 10- 09-2009, the Corporation informed the petitioners that the 1st petitioner is not qualified, on the ground that the affidavit filed by one of them is defective. The petitioners feel aggrieved by the action of the respondents. They contend that the application is filed as a partnership firm, and the affidavit filed by the 2nd petitioner is found to be in order. According to them, there is no serious infirmity or illegality in the application form or affidavit. It is also stated that, due to accidental omission on the part of the Typist, a portion of the affidavit, in the prescribed form, was omitted and the paragraphs were not properly numbered. W.P.No.14958 of 2009 is filed by another applicant, by name, Garepati Sridhar Kumar, challenging the action of the Corporation, placing Venkata Ramana, at first place, in the list of selected candidates. He contends that the application of Venkata Ramana is defective, and he ought not to have been placed at Sl.No.1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, and learned Standing Counsel for the Corporation. It has already been mentioned that it was permissible for the individuals, partnership firms, Cooperative Societies, and organized bodies to submit applications for distributorship. The petitioners in W.P.No.13978 of 2009 have constituted themselves into a partnership firm, and accordingly submitted two separate applications, though one of it would have been sufficient. Both the applications were processed, and ultimately Venkata Ramana was placed at Sl.No.1. That naturally enures for the benefit of the entire firm. Though no formal communication was issued, the Corporation has pointed out that, paragraph 4 of the proforma affidavit does not find place in the one, filed by that individual. A perusal of the affidavit discloses that, the said paragraph was omitted on account of a wrong typing of paragraph numbers. Para 5 of the prescribed proforma was numbered as para 4, and the concluding portion, which does not have any number, was given para 5. Even assuming that there was any material omission in this regard, it is supplemented by the one, filed by the other partner. It is not uncommon that the qualifications held by one partner would accrue to the benefit of other partners. For instance, where contractors registered under a particular category alone are entitled to file their tenders for any works, a partnership firm can submit its tender, if one of the partners is a contractor of such category. It is not necessary that rest of the partners must be registered as such. On the same analogy, if the affidavit filed by one of the partners is found to be proper, the fact that the one, filed by the other, is defective; should not make any difference. In fact, the other affidavit becomes superfluous. The place accorded to the petitioners in W.P.No.13978 of 2009, on the basis of an over all assessment, cannot be denied to them, on account of a technical and inconsequential defect. For the foregoing reasons, the Writ Petition No.13978 of 2009 is allowed, and the Corporation is directed to retain the place accorded to the 1st petitioner therein, in the selections. W.P.No.14958 of 2009 is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dt.17-02-2010. KO