1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 20.10.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.RAMASUBRAMANIAN Writ Petition(MD)No.11147 of 2011 R.Ranjith ... Petitioner Vs. 1.The Indian Oil Corporation Limited, Rep.by its Regional Manager, No.2, Race Course Road, Chokkikulam, Madurai-625 002. 2.The Regional Manager (Indane) The Indian Oil Corporation Limited, No.2, Race Course Road, Chokkikulam, Madurai-625 002. 3.The Senior Area Manager (Indane) The Indian Oil Corporation Limited, No.2, Race Course Road, Chokkikulam, Madurai-625 002. ... Respondents PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the impugned proceeding of the 3rd respondent in Ref.No.MAO/AMB/11, dated 15.09.2011 rejecting the petitioner's application to him for the award of LPG Distributorship and quash the same and further direct the respondents herein to consider forthwith the petitioner's application for the said award. For Petitioner : Mr.S.Xavier Rajini For Respondents : 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 his application for the award of L.P.G. distributorship was rejected. 2.Heard Mr.S.Xavier Rajini, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr.K.Muraleedharan, learned Standing Counsel for I.O.C., takes notice for the respondents. 3.The respondents 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 Ambasamudhram in Tirunelveli District under the open category. The advertisements made it clear that detailed guidelines for selection were available in a brochure at a particular web site on payment of Rs.50/- to the Indian Oil Corporation. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 4.The petitioner submitted an application in response to those advertisements on 17.07.2010. But by the impugned order, dated 15.09.2011, the third respondent informed the petitioner that his 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 his 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.The respondents have also filed a counter affidavit. In the counter affidavit, it is pointed out that the petitioner committed two mistakes which are as follows: "i)In column No.9 where the applicants were required to fill up the educational qualifications, the petitioner did not indicate the year of passing and the Board from which he passed the Matriculation/SSLC examination; (ii)the second mistake committed by the petitioner is that in the affidavit filed by him as per the format available in Annexure-A, he scored off one declaration which relates to his passing the Matriculation/SSLC examination". 6.But on admitted facts, the above two mistakes committed by the petitioner do not appear to be very material and significant. The petitioner has passed S.S.L.C/Matriculation. Thereafter, he had passed a Degree in Engineering and subsequently, he had passed a Master Degree (M.E.) in Bio-Technology. 7.Keeping the above factual details in mind, if we look at the omissions committed by the petitioner, it is seen that column No.9 of the application form relates to the academic qualifications. Column No.9 calls for details with regard to three qualifications namely, i)the details with regard to Post Graduate degrees or Diplomas or qualification equivalent to Post Graduate courses, ii)the details with regard to the graduation and iii)the details with regard to the Matriculation/S.S.L.C. The Column No.9 for easy appreciation is extracted as follows: "9.Educational Qualification*(s): (*)Applicable for individual and applications under partnership. Qualification Board/University Year of Passing I i.Post Graduation in Management https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 Qualification Board/University Year of Passing ii.Diploma in Management from Indian Institute of Management iii.Graduation in Engineering iv.Graduation in Law v.Chartered Accountant II i)Post Graduation in any other field not covered in para I above ii)Graduation in any other field not covered in para I above iii)Cost Accountant iv)Company Secretary v)Diploma in Engineering III Matriculation/SSC Note:Marks will be awarded based on the information given above by the applicant on the education qualification. On verification if it is found that the information given above is incorrect/false/misrepresented then the applicant's candidature will stand cancelled and will not be eligible for distributorship". 8.The only mistake committed by the petitioner is that as against the column No.III relating to Matriculation/SSLC, he failed to fill up the details of the Board from which and the year in which he passed S.S.L.C. But he had mentioned the qualification of a Degree obtained by him and the qualification of the Post Graduate Degree obtained by him in Bio- Technology. Therefore, the non filling up of the details relating to the Board from which and the year in which he passed S.S.L.C cannot be taken to be a deliberate omission or a suppression of any material fact. 9.Insofar as the omission in respect of the affidavit is concerned, there is some confusion in the printed format of the application itself. 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. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 4 10.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. 11.There is one more reason for me to hold that these are not material omissions. The petitioner has enclosed all the certificates relating to his 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 him, they are not very material. 12.As a matter of fact, 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. 13.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 respondents submitted that when the petitioner was guilty of omissions and commissions in the filling up of the application form, his application form was liable for rejection and that the same cannot be found fault with. 14.But the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondents, 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 one where there is omission to fill up the details with regard to the board from which and the year in which the petitioner passed S.S.L.C. The petitioner had, as pointed out earlier, already enclosed the certificates relating to the educational qualifications along with his application. Therefore, there was no suppression in this case. Every omission need not amount to suppression or misstatement. Therefore, the respondents were wrong in rejecting the candidature of the petitioner. 15.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 commence only from the second week of November 2011. Therefore, apart from the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 5 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 respondents by inviting the petitioner for the oral interview scheduled to be held from the second week of November 2011. 16.In view of the above, the writ petition is allowed, the impugned order is set aside and the respondents are directed to consider the application of the petitioner and call him for interview, if he is otherwise eligible for being called for interview. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. SD DEPUTY REGISTRAR ( Writs ) /TRUE COPY/ ASST REGISTRAR sms To 1.The Regional Manager, Indian Oil Corporation Limited, No.2, Race Course Road, Chokkikulam, Madurai-625 002. 2.The Regional Manager (Indane) The Indian Oil Corporation Limited, No.2, Race Course Road, Chokkikulam, Madurai-625 002. 3.The Senior Area Manager (Indane) The Indian Oil Corporation Limited, No.2, Race Course Road, Chokkikulam, Madurai-625 002. 1CC TO MR. ISAAC MOHANLAL, ADVOCATE, SR: 36470: DM::2011:OCTOBER:::21:: Writ Petition(MD)No.11147 of 2011 20.10.2011 5P:5C:: https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/