Dismissed

Annamalla Swapna Rani, v. Indian Oil Corporation Limited

Telangana HC24 Jul 2012WP/2629/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This single-judge order dismissed a writ petition challenging the Indian Oil Corporation's rejection of the petitioner's application for a Kisan Sevak Kendra dealership. The court held that the petitioner failed to enclose the mandatory residence certificate in the notified proforma before the cut-off date, rendering the rejection lawful and not arbitrary.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is dismissed as it is devoid of merit.

Annamalla Swapna Rani, Vs Indian Oil Corporation Limited — Caste Atrocities | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.2629 of 2012

¶3

Date : 24.07.2012

¶4

Between :

¶5

Ms.Annamalla Swapna Rani.

¶6

…..Petitioner

¶7

And

¶8

Indian Oil Corporation Limited, Vijayawada, rep. by its Chief Divisional Retail Sales Manager.

¶9

…..Respondent

¶10

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.2629 of 2012

¶11

ORDER :

¶12

This writ petition is filed, seeking directions by way of Mandamus, declaring the letter dated 30.12.2011, issued to the petitioner as illegal and arbitrary.

¶13

Respondent-Indian Oil Corporation has issued notification inviting applications for allotment of Kisan Sevak Kendra retail dealership at Kodakandla village in Warangal District to the persons belonging to Scheduled Caste community and petitioner is one of the applicants for the said dealership. The application of petitioner is rejected by impugned letter, on the ground that the residence certificate was not enclosed.

¶14

As per the criteria notified by the respondent-Corporation in the notification, applicants have to enclose residence certificate in the proforma given in Appendix-C. According to the respondentCorporation, the petitioner has not filed any such certificate, and at that place, she merely stated that the residence certificate has been enclosed.

¶15

It is the case of petitioner that she has obtained the community, nativity and date of birth certificate from the Mandal Revenue Officer, Kodakandla Mandal and enclosed it along with the application, and inspite of the same, her application is rejected by impugned letter.

¶16

In the counter affidavit filed by the Manager (Retail Sales) of the respondent-Corporation, while denying the allegations made by the petitioner, it is stated that as the application of petitioner is not complete, it is treated as incomplete application, and consequently, petitioner was categorized as ineligible during scrutiny itself. It is stated in the counter that though it is

¶17

contended by the petitioner that she enclosed the residence certificate, the same was not enclosed along with the application and the petitioner was informed of the same when she went to the Divisional Office for inspection of residence certificate after the cut-off date for submission of applications.

¶18

A perusal of notification issued by the respondentCorporation clearly reveals that there is a requirement for enclosing residence certificate in the proforma given in AppendixC. Admittedly, the petitioner has not submitted the residence certificate in the proforma as notified by the respondents. Though it is stated that the residence certificate was also enclosed along with the application, from the counter affidavit, it is clear that the petitioner did not enclose any such certificate before the cut off date notified for receiving applications. In the absence of any proof of filing residence certificate before the cut off date in the prescribed proforma, I do not find any illegality in rejecting the application of petitioner.

¶19

For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is devoid of merit and it is accordingly dismissed. No costs.

¶20

As a sequel, WPMP.No.3268 of 2012 stands closed.

¶21

______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J

¶22

24^th July 2012 ajr

Annamalla Swapna Rani, v. Indian Oil Corporation Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Annamalla Swapna Rani, v. Indian Oil Corporation Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K. Ramesh Babu, S/o. K. Paul Raj Vs The District Collector

Sri. Jugal Kishore, Vs The District Collector

G.Venkateshwarlu Vs The Arbitrator/Additional Joint Collector

Pedda Narasimhappa, S/o. Kavellappa Vs The District Collector

N.Kambagiri Ramudu Vs The District Collector

M.Satyanarayana Rao, Vs The District Collector