Achpal Singh vs Hindustan Petroleum Corporation And Others

Ravi Malimath, J

The respondent corporation invited applications for establishing retail outlet dealership at different locations in State of Uttarakhand by

advertisement dated 25.11.2018. Various persons applied. The writ petitioner as well as the respondent no. 3 also applied. An inspection took place on

07.08.2019. Pursuant to the rectification deed dated 15.11.2019, “khasra no. 1611†was corrected as “khasra no. 1610â€. It was plea of the

petitioner that there being an error, the same was corrected. However, the respondent corporation on considering the rules strictly held that the

property submitted cannot be considered as category â€" 1 but should be categorized as 3. Questioning the same, the instant writ petition was filed.

The learned Single Judge was of the view that since the rectification deed was executed after the inspection took place, the respondents were justified

in considering the application as falling under category â€" 3. Questioning the same, the instant appeal is filed.

Shri Siddharath Singh, learned counsel appearing for the appellant contends that even though respondents were justified in rejecting the category

â€" 1 application, the fact remains that there was no error committed by the appellant. It was error in the document that he possessed. Immediately on

coming to know about the same, he has obtained an appropriate rectification deed, therefore, his application be considered as belonging to category

â€" 1.

The same is disputed by Shri B.S. Adhikari, learned counsel appearing for the respondents no. 1 and 2. He contends that the rules do not permit

considering the documents filed after the last date of submission of the application. Therefore, as on the date submission of application or even on the

date of inspection, there is no error committed by the respondent corporation.

Shri Anil Kumar Joshi, learned counsel for the respondent no. 3 adopts the arguments advanced by respondent corporation.

On hearing learned counsels, we are of the view that appropriate interference is called for. It goes without saying that there was an error in title of

the property, as submitted by the petitioner to the respondent corporation. In the lease deed, the khasra number was shown as 1611. The same was an

error. A rectification deed was executed on 15.11.2019, in which it was corrected as khasra no. 1610. However, the same was done after the

inspection took place. Therefore, in strict compliance of the rule, the respondent corporation was justified in their action. Consequently, there was no

error committed by the learned Single Judge in accepting such an interpretation.

However, we are of the view that there was no real error committed by the writ petitioner. It was an error in the document. There was no intention

of the petitioner to mislead the authorities. Secondly, the allotment is yet not finalized. Neither the respondent no. 3 nor anyone else has been allotted

the retail outlet. Therefore, in the larger interest of justice and in order to ensure that the petitioner is not wrongly denied his claim, we deem it just and

necessary to direct the respondent corporation to reconsider the documents, as furnished by the petitioner as on date. However, we make it clear that

it is the complete jurisdiction of the concerned authority to consider such documents in accordance with law. The documents, which have already been

filed as on date, may be considered by the authority concerned.

For all these reasons, the appeal is allowed. The order dated 29.07.2020 passed by the learned Single Judge is set aside. The writ petition is partly

allowed. Respondent no. 2 is directed to reconsider the documents filed by the petitioner afresh including the rectification deed and thereafter, to

consider the eligibility of the petitioner or otherwise, in accordance with the rules and prevalent provisions of law.

The appeal is disposed off accordingly.

Pending application also stands disposed off accordingly.