Petitioner challenged the rejection of her dealership application due to an omission of the location in a mandatory affidavit. The court dismissed the petition, holding the applicants were bound to strictly comply with the stated requirements.
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.5175 of 2012
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CWP No.5175 of 2012
Date of decision: 21.3.2012
Smt.Monika
-----Petitioner
Vs.
Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited and others
----Respondents
CORAM:- HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL
Present:Mr. Raman B.Garg,Advocate for the petitioner. Ajay Kumar Mittal,J .
CWP No.5175 of 2012
2
application had been rejected on the ground that location name was not mentioned in Appendix 'A'. The petitioner immediately submitted a representation dated 5.3.2012, Annexure P.4 stating that the location name was mentioned by her in all her documents including her application form, proposed site plan and all the affidavits which were attached with the application form. According to the petitioner, due to an inadvertent omission on the part of the typist, the location could not be mentioned in the affidavit Appendix 'A'. The petitioner also submitted fresh affidavit rectifying the omission and requested the respondents to reconsider her case sympathetically. Having received no response from the respondents, the petitioner made another representation dated 16.3.2012 stating that after the application was submitted before the last date stipulated in the advertisement, the site was inspected by the Territory Manager, Jalandhar and it was found suitable. A certificate to the effect that the location of the land was at Taraf Behbal Bahadur, Village Sultanpur Lodhi was obtained from the Patwari and submitted to the Sales Officer of the respondents at Jalandhar. The respondents have fixed 22.3.2012 as the date for holding interviews but they have not reconsidered the representations of the petitioner. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner has approached this Court through the present writ petition.
CWP No.5175 of 2012
3
mentioned in Appendix 'A' which was an affidavit filed by the petitioner alongwith the application. He submitted that the respondents were not justified in rejecting the application of the petitioner for allotment of Retail Outlet dealership.
“I hereby verify that what has been stated above is true to the best of my knowledge and belief and nothing material has been concealed thereof. If any information/declaration given by me in my application or in any document submitted by me in support of application for the award of Retail Outlet dealership at _______(Location) or in this affidavit shall be found to be untrue or incorrect or false, Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited would be within its rights to withdraw the letter of intent/terminate the dealership (if already appointed) and that I would have no claim, whatsoever, against Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited for such withdrawal/termination.”
CWP No.5175 of 2012
4
it was by an inadvertent mistake thus could not be accepted as there was space provided and location to be specified was required to be mentioned in the affidavit. The petitioner having failed to comply with the said requirement, she could not claim any benefit on the ground that there had been an inadvertent mistake. Clause (q) of the terms and conditions of the advertisement reads as under :-
“q. Applications not submitted strictly in accordance with the terms and conditions of this advertisement will be liable to be rejected without assigning any reasons. The applicants should carefully go through the “BROCHURE” available on our website or at the address given under Clause 9 above before submitting their application (s).”
the approach of the respondents in rejecting the application of the petitioner.
March 21, 2012 (Ajay Kumar Mittal) 'gs' Judge
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the application for Retail Outlet dealership should be set aside despite failure to mention the location in the required affidavit.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Smt. Monika
Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited
Ajay Kumar Mittal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
