Petitioner challenged rejection of petrol pump allotment application as incomplete. Court found forms lacked income proof and medical certificate per advertisement. Writ dismissed as mis-conceived.
Writ petition dismissed as the petitioner's application was incomplete and rejection was lawful.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
CWP No. 15233 of 2010(O&M) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CWP No. 15233 of 2010(O&M) Date of decision : 01.05.2012
Puneet Kumar Singh
....Petitioner
Versus
Bharat Petroleum Corporation and others
...Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER
Present : None for the petitioner
Mr. Raman Sharma, Advocate for the respondents no. 1 and 2
MAHESH GROVER, J.
No one is present on behalf of the petitioner.
The petitioner has made a grievance of his being ousted from consideration in the process of allotment of petrol pump for two sites regarding which he had submitted an application each, pursuant to an advertisement having appeared on 30.4.2010. The candidature of the petitioner was rejected on 22.7.2010 on the ground that he had not submitted the requisite information and his forms were incomplete. More specifically it was stated in the rejection of his applications that he had not submitted any proof of his income and had also not attached the medical certificate. The rejection having been conveyed to the petitioner, the interviews for the allotment were conducted on 5.8.2010.
The respondents in the reply submitted in response to the notice of motion issued by this Court have stated that there was a specific requirement in the advertisement that the forms have to be complete in all respects and incomplete forms were to be rejected, and hence they were
CWP No. 15233 of 2010(O&M) 2
very well within their rights to do so and further it has been stated that the petitioner has approached this Court on 18.8.2010 after the interview for allotment has been conducted on 5.8.2010 and he did not approach this Court diligently and therefore, the petition deserves to be rejected.
On due consideration of the matter, I am of the considered opinion that there is a specific prescription in the advertisement requiring any applicant to furnish information regarding income and other aspects of the matter and it was specifically stated that incomplete application is liable to be rejected.
During the course of submissions, the forms of the petitioners have also been shown to the Court in which the petitioner has not mentioned anything in the column of income.
The fact of the forms being incomplete has not been controverted by the petitioner by filing any counter affidavit.
Having regard to the aforesaid, I am of the considered opinion that the writ petition is totally mis-conceived and the respondents are very well within their rights to reject the incomplete application and the Court having perused the applications and specified that the same are incomplete, does not find any fault with the decision of the respondents.
No ground to interfere.
Hence, dismissed.
(Mahesh Grover) Judge
May 1, 2012 rekha
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the writ court can interfere with the rejection of an incomplete application for petrol pump allotment as per the advertisement requirements.
Puneet Kumar Singh
Bharat Petroleum Corporation
Mahesh Grover
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
