Disposed

Gisha Thomas, v. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.

Kerala HC13 Mar 2019WP(C)/6857/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought writ relief against rejection of her application for petroleum retail outlet allocation due to a mistake in the online form. The court disposed of the petition, granting liberty to submit a correction affidavit within three weeks.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is disposed of leaving open the liberty of the petitioner to submit a suitable application or affidavit before the second respondent seeking correction within three weeks.

Gisha Thomas, Vs Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY

¶4

WEDNESDAY,THE 13TH DAY OF MARCH 2019 / 22ND PHALGUNA, 1940

¶5

WP(C).No. 6857 of 2019

¶6

PETITIONER/S:

¶7

GISHA THOMAS, AGED 37 YEARS, W/O. ROY ABRAHAM, VALUMANNEL ANAKKAL P.O, KANJIRAPPALLY, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT 686 508.

¶8

BY ADVS. SRI.R.T.PRADEEP A.A.RASHEED SMT.M.BINDUDAS SRI.K.C.HARISH

¶9

RESPONDENT/S:

¶10

1 INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, INDIAN OIL BHAVAN, G-9, ALI YAVAR JUNG MARG BANDRA (EAST), MUMBAI 400 051.

¶11

2 HEAD DIVISIONAL OFFICE, INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD, TRIVANDRUM DIVISIONAL OFFICE, GROUND FLOOR, PREMIER PARK, INCHAKKAL BY-PASS ROAD, VALLAKKADAVU P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 008.

¶12

R1 & R2 BY SRI. M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR, SC

¶13

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13.03.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

WP(C).No. 6857 of 2019 2

¶15

JUDGMENT

¶16

Petitioner applied for allocation of retail

¶17

outlet of petroleum products through online application in Group 2, where property of third person other than applicant is offered for location. The owner of property got the property by way of two documents, falling in two survey numbers. The date of registration of one document could not be stated in the online application as well as the survey number of one property was mistakenly stated in the application.

¶18

According to the petitioner, she got selected in the bidding process being the highest bidder. She remitted initial security deposit and submitted land documents also. The brochure contemplate under Clause 4(1) eligibility criteria for individual applicants, and that candidature

¶19

can be rejected from one group and relegated to another group if there is non-compliance of land qualifications enumerated therein.

¶20

Therefore, according to the petitioner, the

¶21

mistake in the online application do not fall within the realm of land qualifications. However, the mistake committed by the petitioner, which is

¶22

WP(C).No. 6857 of 2019 3

¶23

not at all relevant for consideration of the

¶24

matter on account of production of documents before the respondent, is taken as a serious draw back on the part of the petitioner in submitting the application and there is every likelihood that

¶25

the application of the petitioner would be rejected and relegated to yet another group and according to the petitioner, that process is already done by the respondent.

¶26

However, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that, petitioner is prepared to submit an application before the 2^nd respondent seeking correction and also prepared to file an affidavit with respect to the same.

¶27

In that view of the matter, after hearing

¶28

respective counsel across the Bar, this writ petition is disposed of, leaving open the liberty of the petitioner to submit suitable application/affidavit before the 2^nd respondent seeking any correction, which if received, shall be considered by the 2^nd respondent in accordance with law, at the earliest and at any rate, within three weeks from the date of receipt of the application/affidavit from the petitioner.

¶29

WP(C).No. 6857 of 2019 4

¶30

I also make it clear that, all the questions of fact and law raised in this writ petition are left open.

¶31

The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.

Sd/-

SHAJI P.CHALY

JUDGE

uu 13.03.2019

WP(C).No. 6857 of 2019 5

¶37

APPENDIX

¶38

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶39

EXHIBIT P1	TRUE COPY OF ONLINE APPLICATION DATED 24-12-2018 BY PETITIONER FOR ALLOCATION OF RETAIL OUTLET DEALEERSHIP.
EXHIBIT P2	THE COPY OF BROCHURE FOR SELECTION OF DEALERS FOR RETAIL OUTLETS DATED 24-11-2018 DEVOID OF APPENDIXES.
EXHIBIT P3	THE COPY OF EMAIL COMMUNICATION NIL DATED AS REGARD THE SELECTION OF PETITIONER BEING THE HIGHEST BIDDER.
EXHIBIT P4	THE COPY OF DETAILS OF TRANSACTION BY SHICH RS. 50,000/- WAS REMITTED THROUGH NET BANKING
EXHIBIT P5	THE COPY OF EMAIL COMMUNICATION NIL DATED CALLING UPON THE PETITIONER TO SUBMIT THE LAND DOCUMENTS.
EXHIBIT P6	THE COPY OF SETTLEMENT DEED NO. 795/2005 DATED 17-2-2005 BY WHICH PROPERTY COMPRISED IN SURVEY NO. 242/3 OF KANJIRAPPALLY VILLAGE DEVOLVED ON JOSEPH MATHEWS,
EXHIBIT P7	THE COPY OF SETTLEMENT DEED NO. 3106/2006 DATED 13-07-2006 BY WHICH PROPERTY COMPRISED IN SURVEY NO 242/3 OF KANJIRAPPALLY VILLAGE DEVOLVED ON JOSEPH MATHEWS.
EXHIBIT P8	THE COPY OF AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY JOSEPH MATHEWS DATED 22-12-2018.
EXHIBIT P9	THE COPY OF LEGAL ADVICE DATED 22- 12-2018.
EXHIBIT P10	THE COPY OF BASIC TAX RECEIPT DATED 29-10-2018 WITH RESPECT TO THE PROPERTY COMPRISED IN SURVEY NO. 242/3 OF KANJIRAPPLLY VILLAGE.
EXHIBIT P11	THE COPY OF BASIC TAX RECEIPT DATED 29-10-2018 WITH RESPECT TO PROPERTY COMPRISED IN SURVEY NO. 242/3-3 OF KANJIRAPPALLY VILLAGE.

¶40

WP(C).No. 6857 of 2019 6

¶41

EXHIBIT P12 THE COPY OF LOCATION PLAN NIL DATED EXHIBIT P13 THE COPY OF POSSESSION CERTIFICATE DATED 1-2-2019.

¶42

EXHIBIT P14 THE COPY OF EMAIL COMMUNICATION DATED 2-3-2019 BY WHICH THE CANDIDATE OF PETITIONER IN GROUP 2 WAS REJECTED AND RELEGATED HER CANDIDATURE TO GROUP 3.

¶43

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:NIL

¶44

//TRUE COPY//

¶45

P.A. TO JUDGE

Gisha Thomas, v. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gisha Thomas, v. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Navas Vs Dr.M.C Rejil

Harikumar.T.S, Vs the Authorised Officer

Parthasarathi Pillai, Vs State of Kerala

Sujithlal.E.S Vs the Director

Deepak U.Nair Vs K.S.Gopakumar

Scotti K.A Vs Salim