JUDGMENT A.K. Yog and R.K. Rastogi, JJ.
1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Counsel for the contesting respondents.
2. In view of our judgment and order dated 26.9.2006 passed in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 54400 of 2006 Smt. Omitri Rai v. General Manager and Anr. we find that this case does not stand on better footing, since the petitioner admittedly submitted an affidavit in the prescribed proforma and the omission of the word 'Bhai (brother)' was relevant and vital to the issue to be considered by the Indian Oil Corporation. It cannot be said to be a merely typographical or inadvertent mistake.
3. Learned Counsel for petitioner has however, referred to the judgment and order dated 10.10.2006 passed by the Bench of Hon. Mr. Justice Jagdish Bhalla and Hon. Mr. Justice D.V. Sharma in Writ Petition No. 6473 (M/B) of 2006 Pramod Kumar v. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. and Ors. which is quoted as under:
The petitioner while making an application for grant of licence, by typographical error, mentioned in the affidavit that he is a married person, but according to the petitioner he is still a bachelor. It has been brought to our knowledge that the status of the petitioner being inadvertently mentioned as "married" he will not be considered for grant of licence.
In the light of the fact that the petitioner is still a bachelor, it is directed that in case the petitioner is otherwise eligible, his case shall be considered provided the petitioner files a correct affidavit indicating not only his marital status, but also the fact whether any of his relative has been granted licence as per appendix-A. Sri Anil Kumar states that he will inform the authority concerned.
With these observations and consent of the parties, the writ petition is finally disposed of.
4. The aforesaid judgment cannot be said to be a binding precedent for the reasons that it was passed with the consent of the parties without referring to the specific terms and conditions contained in the relevant advertisement. Those terms and conditions and their effect has been dismissed by us in the case of Smt. Omitri Rai v. General Manager and Anr. (supra) and in this view of the matter the judgment and order dated 10.10.2006 is per incuriam and cannot be treated as a binding precedent.
5. In this way, there is no manifest error of law apparent on the face of record in the decision taken by the Indian Oil Corporation, and so this writ petition has got no force.
6. Writ Petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
7. No order as to costs.