Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


Jaan Mohammad v. Union Of India And Others - WRIT - C No. 55791 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 17363 (9 October 2006)


This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).


 Court No.10

             Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 55791 of 2006                        

Jaan Mohammad  . . . . .  .. . .. .  . .  . . . . . . . . ...  . .  .  . .Petitioner.


Union of India and others. . .  . . . . .  . . . .  . . .  . .  . .   . Respondents.


Hon'ble A.K. Yog,J.

Hon'ble R.K.Rastogi,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.

Dated: 9.10.2006



Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites


dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.