IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 33720 of 2009(H)
1. K.G.GEETHA,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD.,
... Respondent
2. SENIOR DIVISIONAL RETAIL SALES MANAGER,
For Petitioner :SRI.R.BINDU (SASTHAMANGALAM)
For Respondent :SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.N.RAVINDRAN
Dated :08/12/2009
O R D E R
P.N.RAVINDRAN,J.
—————————————-
W.P.(C) No. 33720 of 2009 – H
—————————————-
Dated 8th December, 2009
Judgment
Heard Sri.R.Bindu Sasthamangalam, the learned counsel
appearing for the petitioner and Sri.E.K.Nandakumar, the
learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents.
2. By Ext.P2 advertisement published in various
newspaper dailies, the Indian Oil Corporation Limited invited
applications from eligible persons for appointment as Kissan
Seva Kendra Dealer at various places including Kakkoor village
in Ernakulam district. Inter alia, it was stipulated that the
applicants should produce a certificate of residence issued by
the Tahsildar concerned to the effect that he or she is a
resident of the district concerned. The last date stipulated in
Ext.P2 notice for submission of applications was 29.9.2009.
The petitioner, who claims that she is a resident of Kakkoor
village in Ernakulam district, submitted an application within
the stipulated time. Along with the application, she had
produced the original of Ext.P3 nativity certificate dated
W.P.(C) No. 33720/2009 2
24.9.2009 issued by the Village Officer, Thirumarady Village
wherein the Village Officer had certified that she is a native of
Ernakulam district. The petitioner did not however produce a
certificate issued by the Tahsildar concerned to the effect that
she is a resident of Ernakulam district.
3. It appears that the petitioner was the only applicant
pursuant to Ext.P2 notice in respect of Kakkoor village. The
respondents scrutinised her application and found that she had
not enclosed a certificate of residence issued by the Tahsildar.
She was accordingly informed by Ext.P4 letter dated 9.11.2009
that as she has not produced a certificate of residence her
application cannot be processed. The petitioner thereupon
applied for and obtained Ext.P1 certificate from Tahsildar,
Muvattupuzha wherein the Tahsildar had certified that the
petitioner is ordinarily residing at Kureekattil House,
Thirumarady village, Muvattupuzha Taluk, Ernakulam District.
The original of Ext.P1 was forwarded to the second respondent
along with Ext.P5 letter dated 17.11.2009. This writ petition
was thereafter filed on 23.11.2009 challenging Ext.P4 and
W.P.(C) No. 33720/2009 3
seeking a direction to the fourth respondent to accept Ext.P1
certificate and to process her application for appointment as
Kissan Seva Kendra Dealer at Kakkoor. The petitioner
contends that as the failure to produce the residence certificate
is only a curable defect and as the nativity certificate produced
by her along with the application proves that she is a resident
of Ernakulam district, the respondents erred in not acting on
her application. It is contended that as no one else had
applied, if Ext.P1 certificate submitted along with Ext.P5 letter
is accepted it will not cause prejudice to any other applicant
and that if the petitioner’s application is processed and she is
appointed if she is found eligible, the respondents can save
unnecessary expenditure and also avoid delay in appointing a
dealer.
4. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the
respondents wherein inter alia it is contended that the
petitioner’s application was not a valid application. The
respondents contend that in paragraph 2.2 of Ext.P2 notice it
has been specifically stipulated that the applications should be
W.P.(C) No. 33720/2009 4
accompanied by a residence certificate issued by the Tahsildar
concerned to the effect that the applicant is a resident of the
district in which the proposed outlet is located and that failure
to produce such a certificate is a defect which cannot be cured.
Relying on Clause 10 (d) of Ext.P2 notification, it is contended
that no document which is not produced along with the
application and before the last date can be received after the
last date for submission of applications. The respondents
contend that the petitioner’s application was not in order and
therefore it was liable to be rejected. It is also contended that
the mere fact that no one else had applied pursuant to Ext.P2
notice is not a ground to entertain an otherwise invalid
application.
5. I have considered the submissions made at the Bar by
the learned counsel appearing on either side. Ext.P2
specifically states that every applicant should produce along
with the application a residence certificate issued by the
Tahsildar concerned to the effect that he or she is a resident of
the district in which he or she seeks appointment as a dealer.
Paragraph 10 (d) stipulates that no document which is not
W.P.(C) No. 33720/2009 5
produced along with the application and before the last date
will be received or acted upon. The petitioner admittedly did
not enclose along with her application a residence certificate
issued by the Tahsildar. As per the terms of Ext.P2 only a
resident of Ernakulam district was entitled to be appointed as
Kissan Seva Kendra Dealer in Kakkoor village. The only
document produced by the petitioner along with her application
was the original of Ext.P3 nativity certificate, which would not
show that the petitioner is a resident of Ernakulam district.
Therefore, the stand taken by the respondents that the
petitioner’s application was an invalid application which was
liable to be rejected for the reason that she had not proved
prima facie that she is a resident of Ernakulam district cannot
be faulted. I therefore find no merit in the challenge to Ext.P4.
Further, clause (d) of paragraph 10 of Ext.P2 stipulates that no
document which is not produced along with the application will
be received or acted upon. Therefore, on the terms of Ext.P2,
Ext.P1 residence certificate cannot be accepted and acted upon
as it was not one submitted along with the application. In any
case, the said document was not produced before the last date
W.P.(C) No. 33720/2009 6
namely, 29.9.2009. The terms and conditions set out in Ext.P2
do not empower the tendering authority or any superior officer
to permit rectification of defects in applications. If such power
is conceded to the tendering authority or any superior officer, it
can lead to misuse and abuse of that power. The stipulation in
the notification that documents which are not produced along
with the application will not not looked into and acted upon
cannot therefore be said to be arbitrary or irrational. The
petitioner who did not satisfy the terms and conditions set out
in Ext.P2 cannot therefore compel the respondents to act on
her application which was otherwise invalid. The mere fact that
no one else had applied pursuant to Ext.P2 for appointment as
Kissan Seva Kendra Dealer in Kakkoor village cannot therefore
be a ground to direct the respondents to act on the petitioner’s
application.
I accordingly hold that no grounds have been made out
for the grant of the reliefs prayed for. The writ petition fails
and is dismissed with the observation that nothing contained in
this judgment will stand in the way of the petitioner from
applying afresh if the respondents invite fresh applications
W.P.(C) No. 33720/2009 7
for appointment as Kissan Seva Kendra Dealer in Kakkoor
village, in Ernakulam district or in any other village in
Ernakulam district.
P.N.RAVINDRAN
Judge
vaa