{"id":119897,"date":"2010-03-09T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-03-08T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/anita-vs-unknown-on-9-march-2010"},"modified":"2016-03-24T20:39:38","modified_gmt":"2016-03-24T15:09:38","slug":"anita-vs-unknown-on-9-march-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/anita-vs-unknown-on-9-march-2010","title":{"rendered":"Anita vs Unknown on 9 March, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court<\/div>\n
Anita vs Unknown on 9 March, 2010<\/div>\n
Bench: A.M. Khanwilkar, S. S. Shinde<\/div>\n
                                  1\n\n\n          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY\n\n\n\n\n                                                                 \n                     BENCH AT AURANGABAD.\n\n\n\n\n                                         \n               WRIT PETITION NO. 6977       OF 2009\n\n\n\n\n                                        \n    Anita W\/o Sidram Koli,\n    Age 41 years, Occu. Business,\n    R\/o Plot No. T-18, Pratap Nagar,\n    Near Suraj Park, Shahanoorwadi,\n    Aurangabad                           .. PETITIONER.\n\n\n\n\n                            \n                            VERSUS\n\n    1)\n                 \n         The Union of India,\n         Through the Secretary,\n         Petroleum Department,\n                \n         New Delhi.\n         [copy to be served\n         on Standing counsel of\n         U.O.I.]\n      \n\n\n    2)   The Chief Divisional Retail\n   \n\n\n\n         Sales Manager, Indian Oil\n         Corporation Ltd., Pune Division,\n         885, Bhandarkar Institute Road,\n         Pune.\n\n\n\n\n\n    3)   The General Manager, (Retail)\n         Indian Oil Bhavan,\n         Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.,\n         G-9, Ali Yawar Jung Marg,\n         Bandara (East), Mumbai-51.\n\n\n\n\n\n    4)   Chief Executive Director (Retail)\n         Indian Oil Bhawan,\n         Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.,\n         G-9, Ali Yawar Jung Marg,\n         Bandara (East), Mumbai-51.\n\n    5)   Ujwala V. Palspkar,\n         Age Major, Occu. Household,\n         R\/o Kot Galli, Shinde Wada,\n         Osmanabad, Dist. Osmanabad              ...RESPONDENTS.\n\n\n\n\n                                         ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 15:41:29 :::\n                                       2\n\n\n                              ...\n\n\n\n\n                                                                         \n    Shri N.P. Patil Jamalpurkar, Advocate holding for\n    Shri P.G. Rodge, Advocate for Petitioner.\n\n\n\n\n                                                 \n    Shri Alok Sharma, Standing Counsel for R.No.1.\n    Shri V.G. Gangapurwala, Advocate for R.Nos. 2 to 4.\n    Shri R.G. Godbole, Advocate for R.No.5.\n\n\n\n\n                                                \n                                          CORAM : A.M. KHANWILKAR\n                                                       AND\n                                                  S.S. SHINDE, JJ.\n<\/pre>\n
                                          DATE        : 9th March, 2010.\n\n                   \n    JUDGMENT: (Per Shinde,J.)\n                  \n    1.           Heard    Learned     Counsel         appearing        for      the\n\n    respective parties.\n      \n\n\n    2.   Rule.   By      consent,     Rule       is     made       returnable\n   \n\n\n\n    forthwith.        Counsel       appearing          for         respective\n\n    respondents waive notice.             With the consent of the\n\n\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n
    parties, heard finally at the stage of admission.\n<\/p>\n
         This Writ Petition is filed seeking directions to<\/p>\n
    the respondent Nos. 2 to 4 to allot retail outlet<\/p>\n
    dealership   to    the   petitioner      and       for    that      purpose<\/p>\n
    issue   necessary     letters\/orders.         It     is     also      prayed<\/p>\n
    that, the selection of respondent No. 5 for allotment<\/p>\n
    of Retail outlet Dealership at Mohol, Dist. Solapur<\/p>\n
                                                 ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:41:29 :::<\/span>
\n                                            3<\/span><\/p>\n
    may be quashed and set aside.\n<\/p>\n
    3.            It is the case of the petitioner that, she<\/p>\n
    belongs to ‘Mahadeo Koli’ caste, which is recognized<\/p>\n
    as `Scheduled Tribe’.                 Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 had<\/p>\n
    issued     an       advertisement          in      daily        Lokmat         dated<\/p>\n
    21-04-2009 thereby inviting applications for allotment<\/p>\n
    of retail outlet dealership at various places. In the<\/p>\n
    said advertisement, it was advertised that one of the<\/p>\n
    Retail     Outlet       at    Mohol,       Dist.     Solapur        was       to    be<\/p>\n
    allotted      to    a     person   belonging        to     ‘Scheduled          Tribe<\/p>\n
    category’.\n<\/p>\n
                  In        the     said        advertisement,               it        was<\/p>\n
    specifically mentioned that, the candidate who desires<\/p>\n
    to    be   considered          from    the       reserve        category,           is<\/p>\n
    required to produce the caste validity certificate at<\/p>\n
    the time of interview, otherwise the application of<\/p>\n
    the    said        candidate       would     be      rejected.           In      this<\/p>\n
    advertisement it was also mentioned that, after the<\/p>\n
    interviews         were      conducted,      a     merit     list       would       be<\/p>\n
    published and in case anyone has any grievance about<\/p>\n
    the said list, he could lodge the complaint within 30<\/p>\n
    days from the date of publication of the said list, to<\/p>\n
                                                        ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:41:29 :::<\/span>
\n                                            4<\/span><\/p>\n
    the respondent Authorities.\n<\/p>\n
               It is further case of the petitioner that, in<\/p>\n
    pursuance to the advertisement dated 21-04-2009, the<\/p>\n
    petitioner had applied to the respondent\/authorities<\/p>\n
    along   with    all    necessary           documents         including          caste<\/p>\n
    validity     certificate          of       the     petitioner.                  After<\/p>\n
    scrutinizing     all       the    documents            the    Authorities          by<\/p>\n
    letter dated 29-07-2009 had called the petitioner and<\/p>\n
    other similarly situated candidates                           for interview,<\/p>\n
    which was scheduled to be held on 20-08-2009.                               In the<\/p>\n
    call letter, it was specifically mentioned that the<\/p>\n
    candidate was required to produce the original caste<\/p>\n
    validity       certificate         granted             by     the        Scrutiny<\/p>\n
    Committee. It was also made clear that non production<\/p>\n
    of   the   caste       validity         certificate            may      lead       to<\/p>\n
    disqualification       \/    rejection             of    the    candidature           \/<\/p>\n
    application.\n<\/p>\n
    4.         In     pursuance        to       the        said    call        letter,<\/p>\n
    petitioner      attended         the       said    interview          with        all<\/p>\n
    relevant     original        documents            including          the        caste<\/p>\n
    validity     certificate.         It       is     further      case        of     the<\/p>\n
    petitioner that, the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 selected<\/p>\n
                                                       ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:41:29 :::<\/span>
\n                                           5<\/span><\/p>\n
    respondent     No.    5    for    allotment      of     the     said       Retail<\/p>\n
    Outlet Dealership instead the petitioner. According to<\/p>\n
    the    petitioner,    respondent          No.   5   has      been      selected<\/p>\n
    though she does not fulfill the conditions stipulated<\/p>\n
    in the advertisement as also in the call letter.                                 The<\/p>\n
    respondent No. 5 is not eligible to be selected for<\/p>\n
    allotment of Retail Outlet Dealership because neither<\/p>\n
    she     possesses the caste validity certificate nor she<\/p>\n
    produced\/submitted the same along with her application<\/p>\n
    or even at the time of interview.\n<\/p>\n
                After         receiving        information           that,           the<\/p>\n
    respondent No. 5 is not eligible to be allotted the<\/p>\n
    said     Dealership         at     Mohol,       Dist.       Solapur,             the<\/p>\n
    petitioner,     applied      under        the   Right      to    Information<\/p>\n
    Act,    2005    to    the        Caste     Scrutiny        Committee             for<\/p>\n
    Scheduled Tribes, at Pune asking for information about<\/p>\n
    the    respondent     No.    5’s     caste      validity        certificate.\n<\/p>\n
    The Scrutiny Committee, in response thereto, by its<\/p>\n
    letter dated 29-09-2009 informed the petitioner that,<\/p>\n
    caste     claim of respondent No.5 is pending with the<\/p>\n
    Scrutiny Committee.              Therefore, the petitioner lodged<\/p>\n
    a   complaint    before      the     respondent        Nos.      2    to     4    on<\/p>\n
    21-08-2009      and   brought       to     their      notice         that,       the<\/p>\n
                                                     ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:41:29 :::<\/span>
\n                                         6<\/span><\/p>\n
    selection of respondent No. 5 is not just and proper<\/p>\n
    and since the petitioner is second in the merit list<\/p>\n
    the petitioner be granted the Retail Outlet Dealership<\/p>\n
    at    Mohol,     Dist.   Solapur.         In    spite       of     the      said<\/p>\n
    complaint\/application the respondents                    have taken any<\/p>\n
    action. Hence this Writ Petition.\n<\/p>\n
    5.          Counsel for the petitioner submits that the<\/p>\n
    advertisement in question specifically mentions that<\/p>\n
    the Retail Outlet Dealership at Mohol, Dist. Solapur<\/p>\n
    was    to   be    allotted     to   the    persons          belonging          to<\/p>\n
    Scheduled Tribe category and such candidate to produce<\/p>\n
    the    caste     validity      certificate         at     the       time       of<\/p>\n
    interview,       otherwise    the   said       application             of     the<\/p>\n
    candidate would be rejected.             It was also mentioned in<\/p>\n
    the said advertisement          that, all necessary documents<\/p>\n
    were to be annexed to the said application and once<\/p>\n
    the application was submitted, the applicants would<\/p>\n
    not be given         permission to add, delete or modify<\/p>\n
    contents therein.         In the said advertisement it was<\/p>\n
    also    specifically         mentioned     that,         no      additional<\/p>\n
    documents would be accepted or considered after the<\/p>\n
    last date of submission of the application.                            It was<\/p>\n
    also mentioned that, after conducting interviews, the<\/p>\n
                                                   ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:41:29 :::<\/span>
\n                                                7<\/span><\/p>\n
    merit    list      would        be       published         and     in      case       the<\/p>\n
    aggrieved     person         can     lodge      the       complaint       within       30<\/p>\n
    days    to   the    respondents           authorities.            It    is     further<\/p>\n
    submitted     that,        in      pursuance          to    the       advertisement<\/p>\n
    dated 21-04-2009, the petitioner has applied to the<\/p>\n
    respondent         authorities                 annexing          all       necessary<\/p>\n
    documents including the caste validity certificate of<\/p>\n
    the    petitioner,       and       accordingly,            on     29-07-2009          the<\/p>\n
    petitioner      attended
\n                         ig            the     interview.              In      spite       of<\/p>\n
    fulfilling         all          conditions            mentioned              in       the<\/p>\n
    advertisement,        respondent               No.    5     was       selected        for<\/p>\n
    allotment of Retail Outlet Dealership, though she is<\/p>\n
    not     eligible.               According             to     the        petitioner,<\/p>\n
    respondent      No.      5      did      not     possess          caste       validity<\/p>\n
    certificate at the time of interview, and therefore,<\/p>\n
    she should not have been considered for selection for<\/p>\n
    the Retail Outlet Dealership at Mohol, Dist. Solapur.\n<\/p>\n
    A   communication        by        the    authorities            that     the     caste<\/p>\n
    claim of respondent No. 5 is pending with the Caste<\/p>\n
    Scrutiny     Committee           for      validation,                 itself      would<\/p>\n
    demonstrate        that,      the     respondent           No.    5     was     not    in<\/p>\n
    possession of original caste validity certificate at<\/p>\n
    the time of interview. It is further submitted that,<\/p>\n
    the advertisement dated 21-04-2009 was issued in Daily<\/p>\n
                                                           ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:41:29 :::<\/span>
\n                                          8<\/span><\/p>\n
    ‘Lokmat’ published in the State of Maharashtra. The<\/p>\n
    petitioner is resident of Aurangabad and respondent<\/p>\n
    No. 5 is resident of Osmanabad. The respondent Nos. 1<\/p>\n
    to 4 carried out their activities                 in Marathwada, and<\/p>\n
    therefore, this Court has jurisdiction to entertain<\/p>\n
    this Writ Petition. Therefore, learned counsel for the<\/p>\n
    petitioner would submit that, this Writ Petition may<\/p>\n
    be allowed.\n<\/p>\n
    6.<\/p>\n
                Counsel for respondent Nos. 2 to 4 invited<\/p>\n
    our   attention     to    the    reply         affidavit          and       also<\/p>\n
    additional    affidavit     filed         on   behalf       of     the       said<\/p>\n
    respondents.    According       to       respondent      Nos.      2     to    4,<\/p>\n
    there is condition mentioned in the advertisement that<\/p>\n
    the person      holding the caste certificate issued by<\/p>\n
    the competent authorities is entitle to fill in the<\/p>\n
    application and to appear for interview.\n<\/p>\n
    7.      Counsel      for respondent Nos. 2 to 4 submits<\/p>\n
    that, before the date of interview, upon requests made<\/p>\n
    by some of the applicants the management has taken a<\/p>\n
    decision that all eligible candidates be called for<\/p>\n
    interview     and   be   allowed          to   participate             in     the<\/p>\n
    interview     irrespective       of        availability           of        caste<\/p>\n
                                                   ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:41:29 :::<\/span>
\n                                                  9<\/span><\/p>\n
    validity certificate. The reason for such decision was<\/p>\n
    that     the        applications             for       certificates             of      the<\/p>\n
    candidates were pending before competent authority for<\/p>\n
    verification and the said verification would take a<\/p>\n
    long time.           It is further submitted that, the said<\/p>\n
    selection of the candidates is purely provisional and<\/p>\n
    subject        to        the     production              of      caste          validity<\/p>\n
    certificate.             It is further submitted that, the Indian<\/p>\n
    Oil Corporation has already initiated necessary steps,<\/p>\n
    in     order        to     investigate             the     complaint            of      the<\/p>\n
    petitioner dated 24-08-2009 and an officer has been<\/p>\n
    nominated to investigate the said complaint.                                         It is<\/p>\n
    further submitted that, the petitioner has placed at<\/p>\n
    serial     No.       2      in     the       merit        list       published           on<\/p>\n
    20-08-2009. Respondent No. 5 is at serial No. 1 in the<\/p>\n
    merit list. However, she has not been issued                                    with the<\/p>\n
    letter     of            intent,        as       the       matter          is        under<\/p>\n
    investigation.              It     is    further         submitted         that,        the<\/p>\n
    present Writ Petition is premature, as no letter of<\/p>\n
    intent is issued to any candidates and the issuance of<\/p>\n
    letter of intent is subject to the production of caste<\/p>\n
    validity       certificate.             Therefore,            the   Writ        Petition<\/p>\n
    deserves to be dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
                                                             ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:41:29 :::<\/span>
\n                                        10<\/span><\/p>\n
                  On behalf of respondent Nos. 2 to 4, relying<\/p>\n
    on additional affidavit in reply, it is also submitted<\/p>\n
    that, no injustice is caused to the petitioner.                                 In<\/p>\n
    view of the advertisement, no injustice is caused, as<\/p>\n
    all eligible candidates were entitled to submit the<\/p>\n
    application with the Caste Certificate, issued by the<\/p>\n
    competent authority, as per Part-I. However, as per<\/p>\n
    the advertisement the Caste validity certificate is<\/p>\n
    required to be produced at the time of interview. The<\/p>\n
    learned counsel further invited our attention to para<\/p>\n
    No. 7 of the additional affidavit in reply to                          contend<\/p>\n
    that    the    matter    was   reviewed       by    Maharashtra            State<\/p>\n
    Office,       Retail     Office,     Retail        Sales      Manager          and<\/p>\n
    Executive Director, in consultation with Head Office,<\/p>\n
    and therefore, the action was advised to the effect<\/p>\n
    that,    in    case    of   Scheduled     Caste       \/Scheduled           Tribe<\/p>\n
    locations, all eligible candidates will be interviewed<\/p>\n
    whether they have the caste validity certificate or<\/p>\n
    not.    However, letter of intent would be issued to the<\/p>\n
    selected candidates, only on production of the caste<\/p>\n
    validity       certificate     all      other       procedures           to     be<\/p>\n
    followed      as   per   the   guidelines.         Therefore,          learned<\/p>\n
    counsel would submit that, it is only after interviews<\/p>\n
    are held, merit panel is prepared of three eligible<\/p>\n
                                                    ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:41:29 :::<\/span>
\n                                         11<\/span><\/p>\n
    candidates in the order of merit, and thereafter, the<\/p>\n
    field investigation report is called for in respect of<\/p>\n
    the first candidate, who is first in merit list, and<\/p>\n
    if everything is proper and according to guidelines,<\/p>\n
    then the letter of intent is issued.                       It is further<\/p>\n
    submitted    that,       issuance    of    letter        of    intent           is<\/p>\n
    subject     to    the    production        of   the      caste        validity<\/p>\n
    certificate. Therefore, learned counsel would submit<\/p>\n
    that, no injustice is caused to any of the eligible<\/p>\n
    candidates and all the candidates, who were eligible<\/p>\n
    from    Scheduled       Caste   \/Schedule       Tribe      category          were<\/p>\n
    called    for     interview.        Therefore,           learned       counsel<\/p>\n
    would    submit    that,    Writ    Petition        is    devoid        of     any<\/p>\n
    merits and same deserves to be dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
    8.          Counsel       appearing       for   the      respondent          No.5<\/p>\n
    raised    preliminary       objection       for     entertaining             Writ<\/p>\n
    Petition on the ground that, the place where Retail<\/p>\n
    Outlet    Dealership       is   allotted,         is     not    within         the<\/p>\n
    jurisdiction of this Bench and the interviews are held<\/p>\n
    at Pune, and therefore, the present petition ought to<\/p>\n
    have been filed and heard at Principle Bench. It is<\/p>\n
    further   submitted       that,     the    respondent          No.    5    stood<\/p>\n
    first in merit list, and therefore, she was entitled<\/p>\n
                                                    ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:41:29 :::<\/span>
\n                                              12<\/span><\/p>\n
    to     get    Retail       Outlet       Dealership       at      Mohol,         Dist.\n<\/p>\n
    Solapur.          It is further submitted that, field survey<\/p>\n
    report       taken    by    the       respondent     Nos.       2    to     4    also<\/p>\n
    supports the claim of the respondent No. 5.                                     It is<\/p>\n
    further       submitted         that,    under      Rules,       there       is     no<\/p>\n
    provision for submitting validation certificate at the<\/p>\n
    time of interview. It is further submitted that, if<\/p>\n
    the petitioner is aggrieved by the order of respondent<\/p>\n
    Nos.    2     to     4,
\n                          ig   in   that     event,     the       petitioner           has<\/p>\n
    alternative remedy by way of complaint before Indian<\/p>\n
    Oil Corporation at the address of the customer service<\/p>\n
    cell displayed at the nearest retail outlet of Indian<\/p>\n
    Oil Corporation. Complaints can also be lodged on the<\/p>\n
    website      of    Indian       Oil    Corporation,        as    a    complaints<\/p>\n
    against       dealer’s          selection.           Therefore,             learned<\/p>\n
    counsel would submit that, the writ Petition is devoid<\/p>\n
    of merits and same deserves                   to be dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
    9.            We have heard the learned counsel appearing<\/p>\n
    for    the    respective         parties       at   length.         Firstly,        We<\/p>\n
    shall deal with the preliminary objection raised by<\/p>\n
    the learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 5<\/p>\n
    that, this bench has no jurisdiction to entertain the<\/p>\n
    Writ Petition in view of the fact that the allotment<\/p>\n
                                                        ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:41:29 :::<\/span>
\n                                          13<\/span><\/p>\n
    of    Retail      Outlet     dealership         is     at        Mohol,        Dist.\n<\/p>\n
    Solapur,       which      comes    under        the     jurisdiction             of<\/p>\n
    Principal Bench and interviews were held at Pune, and<\/p>\n
    therefore, Writ Petition should have been filed and<\/p>\n
    heard at Principal bench. This plea merely deserves to<\/p>\n
    be stated to be rejected, in view of the fact that,<\/p>\n
    the   advertisement        was    issued    even       at    Aurangabad           in<\/p>\n
    Daily     ‘Lokmat’.          Besides,       the        petitioner              being<\/p>\n
    ordinary    residentig     of     Aurangabad,         had    submitted           his<\/p>\n
    application        from    Aurangabad,      which           is     within       the<\/p>\n
    jurisdiction of this Bench.\n<\/p>\n
    10.         Reverting to the merits, we would like to<\/p>\n
    refer to the undisputed facts involved in the present<\/p>\n
    case.      The Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., has issued<\/p>\n
    brochure for selection of petrol\/diesel retail outlet<\/p>\n
    dealers     on     01-07-2009.      Under       clause           4.3     (B)    (i)<\/p>\n
    reservation        is      provided       for         Scheduled           Castes\/<\/p>\n
    Scheduled        Tribes    which     care   recognized                 under    the<\/p>\n
    Constitution of India.              The said clause 4.3.(B) (i)<\/p>\n
    reads thus :-\n<\/p>\n
            “(i) Scheduled Castes \/ Scheduled Tribes (SC\/ST)
\n            Those recognized as Scheduled Cast\/Scheduled
\n            Tribes     (SC\/ST)       under    the    Constitution             of<\/p>\n
                                                     ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:41:29 :::<\/span>
\n                                    14<\/span><\/p>\n
          India, issued by a competent authority as<\/p>\n
          under :<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n\n\n\n\n                                               \n          District     Magistrate\/       Additional          District\n          Magistrate\/Collector\/Deputy                Commissioner\/\n          Addl.        Deputy      Commissioner\/                 Deputy\n\n\n\n\n                                              \n          Collector\/1st            Class                  Stipendiary\n          Magistrate\/City       Magistrate         (Not    below      the\n<\/pre>\n
          rank of 1st Class Stipendiary Magistrate\/Sub
\n          Divisional      Magistrate     \/Taluka          Magistrate\/<\/p>\n
          Executive          Magistrate\/Extra               Assistant<\/p>\n
          Commissioner.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
          Magistrate\/Additional
\n                                      Chief
\n                                           Chief
\n                                                           Presidency
\n                                                           Presidency
\n          Magistrate\/       Presidency    Magistrate.          Revenue<\/p>\n
          Officer not below the rank of Tahsildar.
\n          Sub Divisional Officer of the area where the
\n          candidate and\/or his family normally resides<\/p>\n
          Administrator\/      Secretary       to    Administrator\/<\/p>\n
          Development Officer (Lakshadweep) any other
\n          competent       authority      notified           by       the
\n          Government of India.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
               In clause 10 of the said brochure there is a<\/p>\n
     reference of application form to be filed before the<\/p>\n
     respondents for dealership. The clause 10 (a) reads<\/p>\n
     thus :-\n<\/p>\n
          ” (a)       The    application      can    be    submitted<\/p>\n
          on plain paper in the prescribed format as<\/p>\n
          mentioned.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
          (b)————————\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                                               ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:41:29 :::<\/span>
\n                                  15<\/span><\/p>\n
     (c)—————————-\n<\/p>\n
     (d)—————————\n<\/p>\n
     (e)—————————–\n<\/p>\n
     (f)——————————\n<\/p>\n
     (g)           No                       addition\/deletion\n\n\n\n\n                                                \n            \/alteration      will     be    permitted           in     the\n\n     application once it is submitted.\n\n\n\n\n                                \n     (h)           No additional documents whatsoever\n\n<\/pre>\n
     will be accepted or considered after the cut<\/p>\n
     off date of the application.\n<\/p>\n
     (i)           Application received after the cut<\/p>\n
     off    date    for    any   reason      including             postal<\/p>\n
     delay, and those without accompanying valid<\/p>\n
     documents like Affidavits, Certificates etc.,<\/p>\n
     application fee or incomplete in any respect<\/p>\n
     will not be considered and no correspondence<\/p>\n
     will   be     entertained      by     IOC      in      such     cases<\/p>\n
     whatsoever.\n<\/p>\n
     (j)           The     applications               received          are\n\n\n\n\n\n     scrutinized         after   the       cut        off    date       for\n\n<\/pre>\n
     receiving the applications as given in the<\/p>\n
     advertisement.         In      case     of          applications<\/p>\n
     rejected      at     the    time      of         scrutiny,         the<\/p>\n
     concerned      applicant       will         be      advised        the<\/p>\n
                                                 ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:41:29 :::<\/span>
\n                                            16<\/span><\/p>\n
           reasons        for   rejection        in     writing         and      such<\/p>\n
           applicants will not be called for interview.”\n<\/p>\n
                  On perusal of clause (g) of the application<\/p>\n
    form    it     shows        that,      no     addition,            deletion,           or<\/p>\n
    alteration will be permitted once it is submitted. It<\/p>\n
    is     further        provided      in       clause         10(h)         that,        no<\/p>\n
    additional documents whatsoever will be accepted or<\/p>\n
    considered            after      the        cut     off       date            of     the<\/p>\n
    application.          The clause 13 of the brochure provides<\/p>\n
    for interviews. The clause 13 of the brochure is reads<\/p>\n
    thus :-\n<\/p>\n
           ” The candidates should produce originals of<\/p>\n
           the    documents       submitted           by     them      with      the
\n           application, at the time of interview failing
\n           which     the        applicants            will      be       rendered<\/p>\n
           ineligible. The candidates will also have to
\n           submit a fresh affidavit as per Annexure-A or
\n           Annexure-A 1 as applicable prior to the date
\n           of    interview,       failing        which        the      candidate<\/p>\n
           will      be     considered           as        ineligible            for
\n           dealership. A Committee will be evaluate the
\n           candidates and select them based on the marks
\n           obtained on various parameters based on the
\n           documents submitted with the application form
\n           and their performance in the interview.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                                                           ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:41:29 :::<\/span>
\n                                            17<\/span><\/p>\n
     11.        Plain       reading    of       clause      13    would       make      it<\/p>\n
    clear    that,    the     candidates         are    required         to    produce<\/p>\n
    originals of the documents submitted by them with the<\/p>\n
    application, at the time of interview, failing which<\/p>\n
    the applicant will be rendered ineligible.\n<\/p>\n
                At    this     juncture         it     would     be    relevant         to<\/p>\n
    refer to the advertisement i.e. notice for appointment<\/p>\n
    of     Retail     Outlet
\n                        ig       Dealers          issued         by     Indian         Oil<\/p>\n
    Corporation        Ltd.           Clause           No.2      of       the        said<\/p>\n
    advertisement is in respect of eligibility criteria.\n<\/p>\n
    In the present case, the petitioner and respondent No.<\/p>\n
    5 have applied in pursuance to the said advertisement.\n<\/p>\n
    The     clause    2(b)     of    the        said     advertisement              reads<\/p>\n
    thus :-\n<\/p>\n
           “Scheduled       Caste\/Scheduled             Tribe         Category
\n           (SC\/ST):-           Persons          belonging         to      SC\/ST
\n           category should submit a caste certificate
\n           of       ‘Scheduled        Caste\/Scheduled                   Tribe’<\/p>\n
           category issued by the competent authority.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
           (i)—————————————\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
           The applicant(s) belonging to SC\/ST category
\n           should     ensure        that        the     original          caste
\n           validity    certificate          granted        by    the      Caste
\n           Scrutiny         Committee            as       per          Gazette
\n           Notification             issued       by     the       Govt.        of<\/p>\n
                                                        ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:41:29 :::<\/span>
\n                                             18<\/span><\/p>\n
           Maharashtra         is    produced       at      the      time       of<\/p>\n
           interview,               failing           which                their
\n           candidature\/application shall be rejected.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
    12.             It    is   not     in        dispute        that,       when        the<\/p>\n
    respondent No. 5 was interviewed she was not holding<\/p>\n
    the caste validity certificate in her favour and the<\/p>\n
    petitioner           herein     had     submitted            original            caste<\/p>\n
    validity certificate at the time of interview.                                      The<\/p>\n
    requirement, as stated in the advertisement, states in<\/p>\n
    unambiguous terms that, at the time of interview the<\/p>\n
    candidate should produce the original documents, of<\/p>\n
    which      copies       are     submitted       along       with     application<\/p>\n
    form.       It would be relevant to refer to para No.2 of<\/p>\n
    the affidavit filed on behalf of respondent Nos.2 to<\/p>\n
    4. It is admitted in para No. 2 that, it is true that,<\/p>\n
    the    caste     validity       certificate       is      necessary          at     the<\/p>\n
    time       of   interview.       Para     No.    3     of     the      additional<\/p>\n
    affidavit filed on behalf of respondent Nos. 2 to 4<\/p>\n
    filed by         Deputy Manager, (Retail Sales), Indian Oil<\/p>\n
    Corporation Ltd., Pune reads thus :-\n<\/p>\n
           ”        I further say that, Second part of the
\n           said           Advertisement             for             Scheduled
\n           Castes\/Scheduled Tribes category says that,
\n           Applicants             belonging           to            Scheduled<\/p>\n
                                                         ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:41:29 :::<\/span>
\n                                             19<\/span><\/p>\n
          Castes      \/Scheduled       Tribes       Category,         should<\/p>\n
          ensure      that    the      original       Caste        Validity
\n          Certificate, granted by the Caste Scrutiny<\/p>\n
          Committee, as per the Gazette Notification,
\n          issued by the Government of Maharashtra is
\n          produced at the time of interview. Failing<\/p>\n
          which, their candidature \/ applications shall
\n          be rejected.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                Therefore, on undisputed facts, it is crystal<\/p>\n
    clear that, at the time of interview of the petitioner<\/p>\n
    and   respondent        No.   5,      the    petitioner         had     produced<\/p>\n
    original       caste     validity            certificate         before          the<\/p>\n
    interview      committee        and     respondent        No.     5     did      not<\/p>\n
    produce     the    same.        The     contention        raised         by      the<\/p>\n
    respondent No.5 that there is no Rule to submit caste<\/p>\n
    validation     certificate         at    the    time     of     interview         is<\/p>\n
    required to be rejected in the light of clause 2(b)<\/p>\n
    mentioned in the advertisement.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                It     is    also    relevant       to     mention        that,       in<\/p>\n
    clause 10 of the brochure i.e. Application form, it is<\/p>\n
    provided that no addition, deletion, alteration will<\/p>\n
    be permitted in the application once it is submitted<\/p>\n
    and   no    additional          documents        whatsoever            will       be<\/p>\n
    accepted or considered after the cut off date of the<\/p>\n
                                                      ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:41:29 :::<\/span>
\n                                         20<\/span><\/p>\n
    application. Therefore, it follows that no addition,<\/p>\n
    deletion,      alteration           was        permissible            in        the<\/p>\n
    application once it was submitted.\n<\/p>\n
    12.         Though the learned counsel appearing for the<\/p>\n
    respondent Nos. 2 to 4 submitted that in the interest<\/p>\n
    of     candidates     from    Scheduled          Castes        \/     Scheduled<\/p>\n
    Tribes,     the      respondents          have      decided          to       take<\/p>\n
    interviews of the candidates irrespective of the facts<\/p>\n
    that the original caste validity certificate was not<\/p>\n
    available    with     them    at    the     time     of     interview,           we<\/p>\n
    cannot accept this submission of the learned counsel<\/p>\n
    appearing for the respondent Nos. 2 to 4, in view of<\/p>\n
    the    specific     clauses    in     the      brochure         as     well      as<\/p>\n
    advertisement prescribing the eligibility criteria for<\/p>\n
    the     candidates     belonging          to     Scheduled           Castes        \/<\/p>\n
    Scheduled Tribes category.\n<\/p>\n
    13.         Taking overall view of the matter and taking<\/p>\n
    into     consideration        undisputed         position            that       the<\/p>\n
    condition    enumerated        in    the       advertisement            clearly<\/p>\n
    mentions    that     the   candidate        should       submit        original<\/p>\n
    certificates including the caste validity certificate<\/p>\n
    at the time of interview, and even call letters issued<\/p>\n
                                                     ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:41:29 :::<\/span>
\n                                             21<\/span><\/p>\n
    also mentions that the candidate should produced all<\/p>\n
    original certificates at the time of interview, it is<\/p>\n
    not open for the respondents to contend that it was<\/p>\n
    not   necessary     to     produce         original           caste      validation<\/p>\n
    certificate at the time of interview.\n<\/p>\n
    15           Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner<\/p>\n
    has placed reliance on the reported judgment of the<\/p>\n
    Apex Court in the case of M\/s. Monarch Infrastructure<\/p>\n
    (P)   Ltd.    V\/s.        Commissioner,             Ulhasnagar             Municipal<\/p>\n
    Corporation       and     others       [AIR     2000          SC    2272].         The<\/p>\n
    Hon’ble   Supreme         Court       in     para       No.12       of     the    said<\/p>\n
    judgment has held thus :-\n<\/p>\n
                 “12. The High Court had taken the view
\n                 that if a term of the tender having been
\n                 deleted after the players entered into<\/p>\n
                 the arena it is like changing the rules
\n                 of    the    game       after     it    had       began       and,
\n                 therefore,         if     the     Government             or    the
\n                 Municipal Corporation was free to alter<\/p>\n
                 the conditions fresh process of tender
\n                 was    the    only       alternative             permissible.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                 Therefore,         we      find       that       the        course\n                 adopted       by     the      High     Court             in    the\n                 circumstances           is      justified         because       by\n                 reason       of    deletion           of     a        particular\n                 condition          the        wider        net         will     be\n\n\n\n\n                                                        ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 15:41:29 :::<\/span>\n                                           22<\/span>\n\n<\/pre>\n
                 permissible and a larger participation<\/p>\n
                 or     more    attractive             bids       could        be
\n                 offered.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
               Yet in another reported judgment in case of<\/p>\n
    K. Manjushree Vs. State of A.P.                   (2008) 3 Supreme Court<\/p>\n
    Cases 512, in para No. 33 the Hon’ble Supreme Court<\/p>\n
    held that :-\n<\/p>\n
         ”     The Resolution dated 30-11-2004 merely<\/p>\n
         adopted the procedure prescribed earlier. The<\/p>\n
         previous       procedure         was    not     to       have       any<\/p>\n
         minimum       marks       for      interview.            Therefore,<\/p>\n
         extending the minimum marks prescribed for<\/p>\n
         written examination, to interviews, in the<\/p>\n
         selection process is impermissible. We may<\/p>\n
         clarify that prescription of minimum marks<\/p>\n
         for any interview is not illegal. We have no<\/p>\n
         doubt        that     the       authority         making         rules<\/p>\n
         regulating the selection, can prescribe by<\/p>\n
         rules,       the    minimum      marks       both    for     written<\/p>\n
         examination         and        interviews,          or    prescribe<\/p>\n
         minimum marks for written examination but not<\/p>\n
         for   interview,          or      may    not     prescribe          any<\/p>\n
         minimum marks for either written examination<\/p>\n
         or    interview.          Where        the     rules        do      not<\/p>\n
                                                       ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:41:29 :::<\/span>
\n                                                23<\/span><\/p>\n
            prescribe            any     procedure,        the        Selection<\/p>\n
            Committee            may    also    prescribe         the    minimum<\/p>\n
            marks as stated above. But if the Selection<\/p>\n
            Committee        wants to prescribed minimum marks<\/p>\n
            for      interview, it should do so before the<\/p>\n
            commencement of selection process, it cannot<\/p>\n
            either during the selection process or after<\/p>\n
            the      selection         process,     add      an     additional<\/p>\n
            requirement that the candidates should also<\/p>\n
            secure minimum marks in the interview. What<\/p>\n
            we have found to be illegal, is changing the<\/p>\n
            criteria after completion of the selection<\/p>\n
            process, when the entire selection proceeded<\/p>\n
            on the basis that there will be no minimum<\/p>\n
            marks          for         the     interview.”            (Emphasis<\/p>\n
            supplied).<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                     At this juncture, it would be relevant to<\/p>\n
    refer       to    reported judgment in case of Hemani Malhotra<\/p>\n
    V\/s. High Court of Delhi [reported in (2008) 7 Supreme<\/p>\n
    Court Cases 11 the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that :-\n<\/p>\n
            ”        The    authority        making   rules         regulating<\/p>\n
            the      selection         can   prescribe        by    rules        the<\/p>\n
            minimum        marks both for written examination<\/p>\n
                                                          ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:41:29 :::<\/span>
\n                                             24<\/span><\/p>\n
         and viva voce, but if minimum marks are not<\/p>\n
         prescribed for viva voce before commencement<\/p>\n
         of selection process or after the selection<\/p>\n
         process,        the     authority              concerned            cannot<\/p>\n
         either during the selection process or after<\/p>\n
         the     selection       process,             add      an     additional<\/p>\n
         requirement\/qualification that the candidate<\/p>\n
         should       also     secure       minimum            marks       in      the<\/p>\n
         interview.      ig  There     is        no     good        ground         for<\/p>\n
         reconsideration of proposition of law laid<\/p>\n
         down    in     this    regard       in       K.      Manjusree          Case<\/p>\n
         (2008)     3   SCC     512.    Prescription                 of     minimum<\/p>\n
         marks by the respondent High Court for viva<\/p>\n
         voce,      after      written           test        was      over,        was<\/p>\n
         illegal.” (Emphasis supplied).<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                Therefore, it follows from the authoritative<\/p>\n
    pronouncements       of    the     Hon’ble             Supreme         Court       cited<\/p>\n
    supra,   that     the     authority          cannot        either        during        the<\/p>\n
    selection process or after the selection process alter<\/p>\n
    or add an additional requirement \/ qualification or<\/p>\n
    alter of any conditions already laid down for selection<\/p>\n
    process.\n<\/p>\n
                                                            ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:41:29 :::<\/span>
\n                                                25<\/span><\/p>\n
    16.            In the instant case, it is admitted position<\/p>\n
    that, at the time of interview, the petitioner was<\/p>\n
    possessing caste validity certificate and respondent<\/p>\n
    No. 5 was not holding caste validity certificate. In<\/p>\n
    fact, as per the requirements, conditions mentioned in<\/p>\n
    the    brochure,           advertisement             and    call       letter         for<\/p>\n
    interview, as stated in foregoing paragraphs of this<\/p>\n
    judgment,       it    was       incumbent        to    have      caste       validity<\/p>\n
    certificate at the time of interview itself. In that,<\/p>\n
    it is stated in those conditions that, the applicants<\/p>\n
    belonging to Scheduled Caste \/ Schedule Tribe should<\/p>\n
    ensure       that    the original           caste validity              certificate<\/p>\n
    granted by the Caste Scrutiny Committee to be produced<\/p>\n
    at     the     time        of     interview,          failing        which         their<\/p>\n
    candidature           or        application           shall       be       rejected.\n<\/p>\n
    Therefore,          the    respondent           No.     5   at      the      time       of<\/p>\n
    interview was not having caste validity certificate and<\/p>\n
    was not eligible to be considered for the Retail Outlet<\/p>\n
    Dealership at Mohol, Dist. Solapur. However, Respondent<\/p>\n
    No.5    was     considered          as     the       respondent        Nos.2       to    4<\/p>\n
    decided to relax the condition of having caste validity<\/p>\n
    certificate          at     the     time        of    interview,          after       the<\/p>\n
    applications          were        processed          and    completed         in      all<\/p>\n
    respects.       In other words, the decision to relax the<\/p>\n
                                                           ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:41:29 :::<\/span>
\n                                             26<\/span><\/p>\n
    condition of producing caste validity certificate at<\/p>\n
    the time of interview which pertained to eligibility\/<\/p>\n
    conditions        prescribed           in     the        advertisement              and<\/p>\n
    brochure,    was    taken        soon       before     the     interview,           and<\/p>\n
    during    the      selection            process          which        cannot          be<\/p>\n
    countenanced       in    the     light       of    the    judgments          of     the<\/p>\n
    Hon’ble Supreme Court cited supra. Needless to mention<\/p>\n
    that,       many        candidates          similarly         placed        as      the<\/p>\n
    Respondent      No.5,
\n                        ig     who    did        not     have      caste       validity<\/p>\n
    certificates; could have participated in the process of<\/p>\n
    selection    for         Retail        Outlet        Dealership,            if      the<\/p>\n
    advertisement or the brochure were to clearly specify<\/p>\n
    that position.           Only then the respondent Nos.2 to 4<\/p>\n
    could have allowed          them to participate in interview in<\/p>\n
    absence      of         caste      validity              certificate.               The<\/p>\n
    eligibility\/condition             of        producing         caste        validity<\/p>\n
    certificate after the selection process had began                                   has<\/p>\n
    obviously deprived opportunity to many other candidates<\/p>\n
    similarly placed as that of the Respondent No.5 who did<\/p>\n
    not apply because of the contrary eligibility condition<\/p>\n
    in the advertisement.               Therefore, in our considered<\/p>\n
    opinion, it was not permissible for the respondent Nos.\n<\/p>\n
    2 to 4 to relax \/ waive the condition of producing<\/p>\n
    caste validity certificate at the time of interview of<\/p>\n
                                                         ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:41:29 :::<\/span>
\n                                           27<\/span><\/p>\n
    the candidates.\n<\/p>\n
    17.           We are of the considered opinion that, on the<\/p>\n
    date of interview and actually when interview was held,<\/p>\n
    the    petitioner        was    the   only    candidate         eligible         for<\/p>\n
    selection        since     he     possessed       the      caste        validity<\/p>\n
    certificate. Therefore, the respondent Nos. 2 to 4 were<\/p>\n
    not right in placing the respondent No. 5 at serial No.<\/p>\n
    1 in the merit list. The petitioner is shown second in<\/p>\n
    the     merit     list     and     was     the    only       candidate           who<\/p>\n
    fulfilled all the eligibility criteria \/conditions laid<\/p>\n
    down in brochure \/ advertisement. Therefore, the Retail<\/p>\n
    Outlet Dealership at Mohol, Dist. Solapur should have<\/p>\n
    been given to the petitioner.\n<\/p>\n
    18.           Taking over all view of the matter and in the<\/p>\n
    light    of      discussion       here-in-above,          we     are      of     the<\/p>\n
    considered opinion that, the petitioner is bound to<\/p>\n
    succeed     in     this      petition.       Hence,     the      petition          is<\/p>\n
    allowed. Directions \/ order of the respondent Nos. 2 to<\/p>\n
    4 to allot the Retail Outlet Dealership in favour of<\/p>\n
    respondent       No.   5 and showing him in merit list                             at<\/p>\n
    serial No. 1 is quashed and set aside. The respondent<\/p>\n
    Nos.    1   to    4    are      directed     to    give      Retail        Outlet<\/p>\n
                                                      ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:41:29 :::<\/span>
\n                                           28<\/span><\/p>\n
    Dealership at Mohol Dist. Solapur to the petitioner.\n<\/p>\n
    Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clauses (B) &<\/p>\n
    (C), which read thus :-\n<\/p>\n
           ” (B)        By     appropriate        Writ,         order        or<\/p>\n
           directions, the selection of the respondent<\/p>\n
           No.     5   for     allotment        of     Retail          Outlet<\/p>\n
           Dealership at Mohol, Dist. Solapur may be<\/p>\n
           quashed and set aside.\n<\/p>\n
           (C)   By         appropriate         Writ,         order          or\n\n           directions,        the respondent          authorities may\n\n           be    directed      to   allot       the     Retail         Outlet\n      \n\n\n<\/pre>\n
           Dealership to the petitioner and for that<\/p>\n
           purpose issue necessary letters \/ orders in<\/p>\n
           that regard.”\n<\/p>\n
                 Petition is allowed and disposed of on the<\/p>\n
    above   terms.      The    Civil     Application,           if     any     stands<\/p>\n
    disposed     of    in    view   of    the    disposal         of     main      Writ<\/p>\n
    Petition.\n<\/p>\n
    [ S.S. SHINDE, J ]                 [ A.M. KHANWILKAR, J ]<\/p>\n
    SDM*<\/p>\n
                                                      ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:41:29 :::<\/span>\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court Anita vs Unknown on 9 March, 2010 Bench: A.M. Khanwilkar, S. S. Shinde 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO. 6977 OF 2009 Anita W\/o Sidram Koli, Age 41 years, Occu. Business, R\/o Plot No. T-18, Pratap Nagar, Near Suraj Park, Shahanoorwadi, Aurangabad .. […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[11,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-119897","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bombay-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nAnita vs Unknown on 9 March, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/anita-vs-unknown-on-9-march-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Anita vs Unknown on 9 March, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/anita-vs-unknown-on-9-march-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2010-03-08T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-03-24T15:09:38+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"24 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/anita-vs-unknown-on-9-march-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/anita-vs-unknown-on-9-march-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Anita vs Unknown on 9 March, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-03-08T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-03-24T15:09:38+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/anita-vs-unknown-on-9-march-2010\"},\"wordCount\":4422,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Bombay High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/anita-vs-unknown-on-9-march-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/anita-vs-unknown-on-9-march-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/anita-vs-unknown-on-9-march-2010\",\"name\":\"Anita vs Unknown on 9 March, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-03-08T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-03-24T15:09:38+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/anita-vs-unknown-on-9-march-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/anita-vs-unknown-on-9-march-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/anita-vs-unknown-on-9-march-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Anita vs Unknown on 9 March, 2010\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Anita vs Unknown on 9 March, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/anita-vs-unknown-on-9-march-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Anita vs Unknown on 9 March, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/anita-vs-unknown-on-9-march-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-03-08T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-03-24T15:09:38+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"24 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/anita-vs-unknown-on-9-march-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/anita-vs-unknown-on-9-march-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Anita vs Unknown on 9 March, 2010","datePublished":"2010-03-08T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-03-24T15:09:38+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/anita-vs-unknown-on-9-march-2010"},"wordCount":4422,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Bombay High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/anita-vs-unknown-on-9-march-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/anita-vs-unknown-on-9-march-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/anita-vs-unknown-on-9-march-2010","name":"Anita vs Unknown on 9 March, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-03-08T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-03-24T15:09:38+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/anita-vs-unknown-on-9-march-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/anita-vs-unknown-on-9-march-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/anita-vs-unknown-on-9-march-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Anita vs Unknown on 9 March, 2010"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/119897","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=119897"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/119897\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=119897"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=119897"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=119897"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}