counselling of the application and the petitioner has not submitted (not complied with the deficiencies). However, in the impugned order, particulars of those deficiencies in the application were not mentioned. No other material is produced by the respondents to show that any notice was issued to petitioner specifying therein the deficiencies in the application of the petitioner. No doubt, in the letter of the petitioner dated – Nil - referred to by the learned Standing Counsel, it was vaguely mentioned as if some certificates were submitted without mentioning the particulars of those certificates. I am of the considered view, even admitting that the petitioner in his letter has not mentioned the particulars of the certificates which were enclosed, still on verification of those certificates at the prima facie counselling, if the respondent authorities found that the required documents were not enclosed or the documents enclosed were not relevant for the purpose of scrutiny, nothing prevents the respondent authorities to issue a notice/communication to the petitioner to submit the required particulars/documents within the time specified by the respondent authorities. That opportunity seems, not conferred on the petitioner and therefore, the principles of natural justice were a casualty in this case which is writ large from the impugned order.
