Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 390 of 2012. Case: Indian Oil Corporation Vs Shyam Sunde. Rajasthan High Court

Case NumberCivil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 390 of 2012
CounselFor Appellant: O. P. Mehta, Adv. and For Respondents: Deepika Vyas, Adv.
JudgesAmitava Roy, C.J. and Arun Bhansali , J.
IssueEssential Commodities Act (10 of 1955) - Section 3
CitationAIR 2013 Raj 170
Judgement DateMarch 04, 2013
CourtRajasthan High Court

Judgment:

Amitava Roy, C.J.

  1. Being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 16-3-2012 passed in S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2075/12 sustaining the respondent-writ-petitioner's impugnment of the rejection of his candidature for LPG distributorship in Pachpadra District Barmer and Bikaner-II vide communications dated 11-2-2012 and 14-2-2012 respectively to that effect, the appellant-Indian Oil Corporation (for short, hereafter referred to as "the Corporation") is in appeal.

  2. We have heard Mr. O. P. Mehta, learned counsel for the appellants and Smt. Deepika Vyas, learned counsel for the respondent.

  3. The appellant-Corporation had issued an advertisement dated 13-3-2010 inviting applications for appointment of its LPG distributors amongst others at Bikaner-II and Pachadra District Barmer. In the advertisement, it was inter alia mentioned that the candidate to be eligible ought to conform to the multiple dealership/distributorship norms signifying that his/her family unit was not holding any dealership/distributorship in any public sector undertaking or company. In the format of the affidavit to this effect, it was to be declared in the following terms:-

    (Vernacular matter omitted...Ed.)

  4. In the prevailing guidelines pertaining to eligibility and governing the process, it was clearly stipulated amongst others that an application would be treated as incomplete if such affidavit is not as per the format. The advertisement mentioned 12-4-2010 to be last date for submission of applications. On 5-4-2010, a corrigendum was issued by the Corporation incorporating the following amendments in the affidavit:-

    (Vernacular matter omitted...Ed.)

  5. The corrigendum referred to the modifications made therein and required that the applications ought to be in conformity therewith. Special mention was made with regard to the amended format of the affidavit. Thereby, the last date for receipt of applications was extended to 4-5-2010. Admittedly, the respondent-writ petitioner submitted his applications on 3-5-2010, however, with the affidavit containing the contents published in the earlier advertisement dated 13-3-2010 in the following terms:-

    (Vernacular matter omitted...Ed.)

  6. As the applications were found not to be in compliance of the stipulations mentioned in the corrigendum dated 5-4-2010, the same were rejected by orders referred to hereinabove. Being aggrieved, he approached this Court.

  7. Whereas the respondent-writ petitioner contended that...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT