Dismissed

Shri. Pakash Anandrao Abitkar v. the Senior Regional Manager, Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. and Anr.

Bombay HC4 Feb 2014WP/9798/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged the rejection of an application for a Hindustan Petroleum retail outlet due to submitting a corrected lease deed after the statutory cut-off date. The Court held that the strict adherence to the advertised deadline and prohibition on post-deadline documents is essential to maintain fairness for all applicants and refused interference.

What the court decided

AI extract

Shri. Pakash Anandrao Abitkar Vs the Senior Regional… — Consumer Protection | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

skc

¶2

WP-9798-13

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 9798 OF 2013

¶5

Prakash Anandrao Abitkar .. Petitioner vs. The Senior Regional Manager, Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. & Anr. .. Respondents

¶6

Mr. Tanaji Mhatugade for Petitioner.

¶7

Mr. Nilesh Modi with Ms. Jenita Lale i/b. M/s. Rustamji & Ginwala for Respondents.

¶8

CORAM : A. S. OKA & M. S. SONAK, JJ. 4TH FEBRUARY 2014

¶9

P.C. :-

¶10

1] The Petitioner questions the letter dated 19.10.2013 which denies the Petitioner a Retail Outlet Dealership at Location (38) between Ispurili to Bidri on Kolhapur-Gargoti Road, District Kolhapur under the open category.

¶11

2] By an advertisement dated 15.09.2011, the Respondents had invited applications for the award of the aforesaid Retail Outlet Dealership. The general terms and conditions, subject to which the dealerships were to be awarded, were set out in the advertisement itself. Clauses (b), (d), (e) and (f) of the said general terms and conditions read as follows:-

1/6

skc

WP-9798-13

“(b) Filed application along with relevant enclosures complete in all respects to be submitted so as to reach the office address mentioned above on or before 5.30 p.m. (1730 hrs) on 13/10/2011. All the pages of application along with enclosures should be serial numbers and total number of pages to be indicated on top of the application.

¶16

(d ) No addition / deletion / alteration will be permitted in the application once it is submitted.

¶17

(e) No additional documents whatsoever will be accepted or considered after the cut off date of the application.

¶18

(f) Applications received after the cut -off date including postal delay, and those without accompanying valid documents including application fee or incomplete in any respect will not be considered and no correspondence will be entertained by HPCL in such cases whatsoever. ”

¶19

3] Besides above, the Respondents have issued guidelines for selection of Retail Outlet Dealers and clauses 9(g) and 9(h) thereof, read as follows:-

¶20

“9(h) No addition / deletion / alteration will be permitted in the application form after cut-off date for submission of applications.

¶21

(h) No additional documents whatsoever will be accepted or considered after the cut off date for submission of application.”

¶22

4] As per the advertisement dated 15.09.2011, the last date for

2/6

skc

WP-9798-13

submission of application forms along with all relevant enclosures was 13.10.2011. However, subsequently this came to be extended upto 27.10.2011.

¶27

5] There is no dispute that the Petitioner submitted his application form along with enclosures on 24.10.2011. One of the enclosures was a Registered Lease Deed dated 20.10.2011, in respect of property at Gat No. 442.

¶28

6] The Petitioner, however, offered for inspection property at Gat No. 583. On this basis, the Petitioner was awarded the prescribed marks and placed at the second position in the order of merit. Upon the candidate in the first position declining dealership, occasion arose to scrutinise the documents submitted by the Petitioner in greater details. In the course of such scrutiny, it was realised that the Petitioner had submitted Registered Lease Deed dated 20.10.2011 in respect of property at Gat No. 442 but the property offered for inspection was at Gat No. 583.

¶29

7] Upon such discrepancy being brought to the notice of the Petitioner, the Petitioner submitted a zerox copy of Registered Deed of Correction dated 30.01.2013, purporting to correct the description of the leased property from Gat No. 442 to Gat No. 583. This was submitted on 01.02.2013.

3/6

skc

WP-9798-13

8] The petitioner was then invited to a meeting with the officials of the Respondents and appraised of the difficulties in accepting the correct Deed of Lease after the expiry of the extended period for submission of application forms along with all enclosures. The Petitioner, represented in the matter, which representation was ultimately turned down by the impugned letter dated 19.10.2013. Hence, the present Petition.

¶34

9] The learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that there was a mistake in the description of the leased property and therefore the same was corrected by Registered document dated 30.01.2013. The correction relates back to the date of execution of the original Lease Deed dated 20.10.2011. Accordingly, the corrected Lease Deed should be deemed to have been submitted by the Petitioner on 24.10.2011 itself, which is well within period prescribed for submission of application along with all annexures. The learned counsel further submitted that the rejection of dealership is based upon a mere technicality and that the Petitioner ought not to suffer on account of an inadvertent typographical error in the lease Deed dated 20.10.2011.

¶35

10] We have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the Petition, as well as, the affidavit in

4/6

skc

WP-9798-13

reply filed by and on behalf of the Respondents.

¶40

11] In matters such as this, there is certain sanctity to the 'cut off date' stated in the advertisement inviting applications for award of dealership. The general terms and conditions referred to earlier, specified that no addition, deletion, alteration will be permitted in the application, once the same is submitted. It was also specified that no additional documents whatsoever will be accepted or considered after the cut off date of the application. The same conditions are reiterated in the guidelines for selection of the Retail Outlet Dealers. In such circumstances, to permit or direct the Respondents to relax the time schedule or to accept additional documents after the prescribed cut off date may not be legal and proper. This is not a matter between the Petitioner and the Respondents. This is a matter which concerns other eligible applicants, who may not have applied in pursuance of advertisement dated 15.09.2011 because they were in no position to meet the prescribed deadline in matter of compliances. To permit the relaxation in time schedule in favour of the Petitioner or to direct the Respondents to accept additional documents after the cut off date in case of the Petitioner, may virtually amount to directing the Respondents to act against their own terms and conditions published for benefit of all intending applicants. This, in our opinion, will not be appropriate.

5/6

skc

WP-9798-13

12] Even if we were to accept the Petitioner's contention that the correction made relates back to the date of execution of the original Lease Deed 20.10.2011, the same is quite irrelevant in the context of the issues raised in the present Petition. The Deed of Correction dated 30.01.2013, was admittedly not even in existence as on 27.10.2011, which was the cut off date for filing of application along with all relevant enclosures. This is not a case of mere technicality. This would amount to giving a go by to the cut off date prescribed. This would amount to permitting additional documents to be filed after the cut off date, despite clear instructions to the contrary. Such deviation from terms and conditions already publicized, may not be appropriate.

¶45

13] In the aforesaid circumstances, we are satisfied that there is no case for interference with the impugned letter dated 19.10.2013.

¶46

14] The Petition is accordingly rejected. There shall however be no order as to costs.

¶47

(M. S. SONAK, J.)

¶48

Chandka

¶49

6/6

Shri. Pakash Anandrao Abitkar v. the Senior Regional Manager, Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Shri. Pakash Anandrao Abitkar v. the Senior Regional Manager, Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Hemant Baliram Malekar Vs Mrs. Shubhangi Hemant Malekar

Maharashtra Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, through Trustee and Ors. Vs Kalyan Dombivli Municipal Corporation and Ors.

Mr. Shantilal Lalchand Jain and Ors. Vs Mr. Hanif Haji Adam Peer Mohammed Lulaniya and Ors.

Shri. Ramesh Vinayak Powar Vs Ld. District Collector of Kolhapur and Ors.

Nirmala Jagannath Barge and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Revenue and Ors.

Mr. Siddharam Shivappa Patil Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Principal Secretary, Urban Development Dept