High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Jaan Mohammad v. Union Of India And Others - WRIT - C No. 55791 of 2006  RD-AH 17363 (9 October 2006)
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 55791 of 2006
Jaan Mohammad . . . . . .. . .. . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . .Petitioner.
Union of India and others. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Respondents.
Hon'ble A.K. Yog,J.
This writ petition has been filed against the impugned order dated nil passed by the respondent no.3 rejecting the petitioner's application for retail outlet dealership of Indian Oil.
We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Prakash Padia, learned Counsel for the contesting respondents no. 2 and 3.
The application submitted by the petitioner has been rejected by means of the impugned order dated Nil/ copy of which has been filed as Annexure no. 5 to the writ petition, on the ground that requisite documents in support of age and educational qualifications were not annexed along with the original application.
The petitioner, on the other hand, submits that he had annexed such document. Prima facie, we are not satisfied with the above pleadings of the petitioner for the reason that photostat copy of the affidavit which is annexed as part of Annexure no. 3 to the writ petition ( page 37 of the writ Paper Book ), and the original of which is said to have been filed in support of the application, itself indicates that he had left the date, month and year of birth blank in the said affidavit said to be sworn on 17.7.2005. There is also no such indication in the application (Annexure no.1 to the writ petition) that the requisite document was being annexed. There is no reason to doubt the stand taken by the Indian Oil Corporation that the document was not annexed. In this view of the matter, it is not a fit case for interference. The documents cannot be allowed to be incorporated/added/inserted as already held by this Court in its judgment and order dated 27.9.2006 passed in Civil Misc. Writ Petition no. 54068 of 2006, relevant extract of which reads as follows:
" . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Clause (e) of para 12.1 of the aforesaid Instruction titled 'APPLICATION FORM' reads -'No addition/deletion/alteration will be permitted in the application once it is submitted.'
Clause (f) reads-'No additional documents whatsoever will be accepted or considered after the cut off date of the application.'
Again clause (g) reads-'Applications received after the cut-off date including postal delay, and those without accompanying valid documents like application fee or incomplete in any respect will not be considered and no correspondence will be entertained by IOC in such cases whatsoever'.
In view of the above petitioner has no statutory enforceable right by invoking jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226,. Constitution of India.
We do not find such Instructions are arbitrary. It is to be appreciated that in case correction as sought by addition/deletion or alteration in the affidavit is permitted then process of considering applications will be completely dislocated leading to confusion, inordinate delay and consequent inconvenience and prejudice to the Corporation.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the Judgment and order dated 9.9.2005 of this Court in WP No.59722 of 2005 ( Smt. Meera Kori Versus Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. and another). We have already dealt with the said judgment while deciding Writ Petition No. 54400 of 2006-Smt. Omitri Rai Versus General Manager and another vide judgment and order dated 26.9.2006.
No case made out for interference by this Court.
Petition is dismissed in limine"
In view of the above, it is not a fit case for interference.
The writ petition stands dismissed in limine.
No order as to costs.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.