IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.7598 of 2009 DR.MADHURI SINHA Versus THE UNION OF INDIA & ORS ----------- 4 04.08.2009 Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission to make party Deputy General Manager LPG as respondent no. 7. The petitioner’s candidature for award of Indane distributorship of Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. At Gaya under OP (W) category advertised on 17.10.2007 has been rejected/cancelled on two grounds. First ground is that money has been withdrawn from the Bank within the locking period, subsequently the candidate was married. She has inserted the clause meant for unmarried person. Learned counsel submits that the grounds on which her candidature has been cancelled are non est. Learned counsel submits that it would appear from Annexure – A which is the field report of the Officer of IOCL that the petitioner immediately deposited more amount then she withdrew from the Bank. The amount was indicated to the Field Officer and has been also noted therein. Learned counsel submits that the objective of the 2 liquidity clause is for the purposes of satisfying whether the intending candidate has desired liquidity or not. Learned counsel submits that in case if she had not deposited the amount which she had withdrawn during the locking period she could have been at fault but in the instant case she has deposited more amount than what she has withdrawn. So far as the second ground is concerned, learned counsel has referred to Annexure E which is an affidavit filed by the petitioner and has been annexed by the IOCL in counter affidavit itself. In the affidavit petitioner has sated that she is married. She also stated that her parents and unmarried brother or sister have not been allotted any distributorship or retail dealership. Learned counsel submits that the defect that she has not stated that her husband does not possess any distributorship is an oversight and a minor mistake. She asserts that her husband or her children do not have any IOCL distributorship. Learned counsel for the IOCL states that the petitioner has not maintained the same balance in running account as was indicated on the date of filing of the application. He 3 further submits that as per clause 19 there is no scope for rectifying even minor defects after last date for filing the application. Taking into consideration the facts of this case, this Court observes that if petitioner approaches the respondent no. 7 with her representation in writing the same would be disposed of within three weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of the representation. kundan (S. P. Singh, J.)