Court No. - 46
Case :- CIVIL MISC REVIEW APPLICATION No. - 361 of 2021 Applicant :- Sanjay Kumar Gautam Opposite Party :- Union Of India And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Vinod Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- A.S.G.I.,Rituraj Singh Hon'ble Manoj Misra,J. Hon'ble Jayant Banerji,J.
We have heard Sri Vinod Singh for the review applicant- petitioner and Sri Rituraj Singh for respondent nos. 2 to 4.
This review application seeks a review of our order dated 02.09.2021. To have a clear understanding of the controversy it would be useful to notice the order dated 02.09.2021, which is extracted below :-
"Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Rituraj Singh, learned counsel for respondents no.2 to 4 and have perused the record.
The petitioner pursuant to an advertisement dated 25th November, 2018 applied online on 24th December, 2018 for retail outlet of Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. (for short the Corporation). In application, apart from other disclosures, the petitioner disclosed his marital status as single.
By the impugned order dated 2nd March, 2021, the candidature of the petitioner has been declared cancelled by observing/recording as follows:-
"1. Please refer to your application received by us as Application Form No.15456087520435 on the subject.
2. This is to inform you that during Field Verification of Credentials, you failed to produce the original documents for verification by the Officer/the documents produced by you were at variance with the documents submitted/information given in the application as detailed below:
FVC was done on 28.11.2020. The FVC committee has recommended for non-issuance of LOI due to the following reason:
Sh. Arvind Kumar (father of the applicant) is proprietor of Corporation owned/Leased site "A site" RO M/s AK Filling Station, Kadaura, Jalaun vide dealership agreement dated 21.11.2008. Sh. Sanjay Kumar Gautam s/o Sh. Arvind Kumar was unmarried at the time of filing the application as per application form. As per affidavit submitted by Sh. Sanjay Singh he got married to Smt. Akanksha Chaudhary on 25.12.2020. As per disqualification clause 14(A)(i) of Dealership guideline dated 24.11.2020, any existing A/CC site RO/SKO dealership can not apply for any A/B site RO dealership. Since Sh. Sanjay Kumar Gautam was unmarried at the time of application, he was ineligible to apply for any dealership.
3. In view of the above, re regret to inform you that your candidature stands cancelled."
Clause 14(A)(i) of Dealership Guideline dated 24th November, 2020, which is pari materia clause 10 of the extant Guidelines when the petitioner applied online, reads as follows:-
"The persons while meeting the above mentioned eligibility criteria if do not satisfy any of the following requirements will be considered as ineligible for applying for the dealership:-
(i) Fulfill Multiple dealership norms: Multiple Dealership norms as mentioned below will be applicable for existing and future "A"/"CC" site RO dealerships.
Multiple Dealership norms means that the applicant or any other member of his/her 'family unit' should not hold a Corporation owned "A"/"CC" site RO/SKO-LDO dealership or RO/SKO-LDO dealerships/LPG distributorships developed under Corpus Fund Scheme and other Special Category (DQ/Operation Vijay/Parliament attack beneficiary, etc.), or Letter of Intent (LOI) for the same of any Oil Company.
Note:
(a) Existing "B"/"DC" site RO/SKO-LDO dealers/LPG distributors {other than those distributorships developed under Corpus Fund Scheme and other Special category (DQ/Operation Vijay/Parliament attack beneficiary, etc.)}. and LOI holders including members of his/her 'family unit' may apply for "B"/"DC" site RO dealerships.
(b) Existing unviable SKO dealers of OMCs (individual & partnership firms only) can also apply for RO dealerships (for both "A"/"CC" site & "B"/"CC" site ROs) as per Clause 6(viii)."
'Family Unit' in case of married applicant, shall consist of individual concerned, his/her Spouse and unmarried son(s)/daughter(s). In case of unmarried person/applicant, 'Family Unit shall consist of individual concerned, his/her parents and his/her unmarried brother(s) and unmarried sister(s). In case of divorcee, 'Family Unit' shall consist of individual concerned, unmarried son(s)/unmarried daughter(s) whose custody is given to him/her. In case of widow/widower, 'Family Unit' shall consist of individual concerned, unmarried son(s)/unmarried daughter(s)."
The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that eligibility of a person for submitting an application is to be reckoned with reference to his eligibility on the last date for submission of the application and since by the last date fixed for the submission of the application i.e. 25th December, 2018, the applicant got married and his marital status changed, he came out of the clutches of the disqualification clause. Hence, the application was wrongly rejected on the ground that he was disqualified.
The learned counsel for the respondent-Corporation has invited our attention to page 16 of the paper book, which is an extract of the advertisement inviting applications. The said extract of the advertisement clearly specifies as follows:-
"Application for RO dealership along with online payment of Non- refundable application fee, as applicable (detailed below), should be submitted on-line by 24th December, 2018."
It is thus submitted by him that although in the document appended at page 99 of the paper book it is mentioned that the closing date is 25th December, 2018 but the advertisement clearly specified the last date for submission of online application by 24th December, 2018 and, therefore, the marital status of the petitioner on the last date was single, as mentioned by him and therefore, the disqualification clause did apply to the case of the petitioner. Hence, no fault can be found with the order of cancellation.
We have considered the rival submissions and have perused the record carefully.
The document which has been annexed as annexure 1 is the extract of the advertisement dated 25th November, 2018, pursuant to which, the petitioner submitted his application. It is clearly specified in the advertisement (i.e. at page 16 of the paper book) that the last date for submission of online application is 24th December, 2018. Since, by that date, the marital status of the petitioner was single and it is not disputed before us that his father held a Corporation owned/Leased site "A" retail outlet by the name of M/s AK Filling Station, Kadaura, Jalaun, in view of the disqualification clause 14(A)(i) extracted above, which is pari materia clause 10 of the extant policy at the time of submission, the petitioner was disqualified, therefore, we find no good reason to interfere with the impugned order.
The writ petition is dismissed."
In this review application, the applicant has submitted that the last date for submission of online application was extended till 25.12.2018 and, therefore, as on 25.12.2018 the marital status of the applicant had changed from 'single' to 'married', his application was liable to be considered on merits and not rejected on ground of being single.
Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that it is not in dispute that if the marital status of the applicant had been single, in the facts of the case he would not be eligible. Therefore, what needs to be examined is whether in the application form, the applicant disclosed his marital status as 'single' or 'married'. He submits that the application form, which is at page-90, clearly indicates that the applicant had disclosed his marital status as single therefore, from the own statement of the applicant, in view of the guide-lines relating to allotment, the applicant was not eligible.
In the light of above submission of the learned counsel for the respondents, we put a specific question to the learned counsel for the applicant whether the applicant had withdrawn his application submitted earlier showing his status as 'single' and had submitted a fresh application showing his status as 'married'.
Learned counsel for the applicant fairly stated that the applicant had submitted a single application showing his status as 'single'.
As, admittedly, in the facts of the case, being single, the applicant was not eligible; and he submitted the application showing his status as single, we do not find a good ground to entertain the review application. The review application is dismissed.
Order Date :- 16.12.2021 n.u.