Patna High Court
Priya Kumari vs Indian Oil Corporation Ltd on 14 September, 2020
Equivalent citations: AIR 2021 (NOC) 489 (PAT.), AIRONLINE 2020 PAT 562
Author: Mohit Kumar Shah
Bench: Mohit Kumar Shah
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.7292 of 2020
======================================================
Priya Kumari Daughter of Ramanuj Prasad, Resident of Inayatpur, Dhamaun,
P.S.- Patory, District- Samastipur, Bihar.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. A Public Sector Company, Having its registered
Officer at Indian Oil Bhawan, 9 Ali Yavar Jung Marg, Bandra, (East)
Mumbai- 400051- Having its Officerat Shahi Bhawan, 1st Floor, Exhibition
Road, Patna, through its Chairman cum Managing Director.
2. The General Manager Indian Oil Corporation Limited, Bihar State Office,
Marketing Division, Eastern Region, Loknayak Bhawan, Dak Bunglow
Road, P.S.- Kotwali, Distt.- Patna.
3. Indian Oil Corporation Limited, (M.D.) Begusarai Divisional Office, P.O.-
Barauni Oil Refinery, District- Begusarai, Bihar.
4. Chief Divisional Retail Sales Manager Begusarai Divisional Office, Indian
Oil Corporation Limited, P.O.- Barauni Oil Refinery, District- Begusarai,
Bihar.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Prince Kumar Mishra
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Ankit Katriar
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MOHIT KUMAR SHAH
CAV JUDGMENT
Date : 14.09.2020
The writ petition has been filed for quashing the
letter dated 21.04.2020 issued by the Chief Divisional Retail
Sales Manager, Begusarai Divisional Office, Indian Oil
Corporation Limited (hereinafter referred to as the
"Corporation"), whereby and whereunder the petitioner has
been informed that her application for grant of retail outlet
dealership of the respondent Corporation has been found
ineligible since Khesra No. 633 has been incorrectly stated as
Khesra No. 866 in the lease deed. The petitioner further prays
for quashing of the E-mail communication dated 16 th March,
Patna High Court CWJC No.7292 of 2020 dt.14-09-2020
2/24
2020, issued by the Begusarai Divisional office of the
respondent Corporation, whereby and whereunder the
candidature of the petitioner has been declared to be ineligible.
It is also prayed to direct the respondent Corporation to accept
the land of the petitioner bearing Khesra No. 633 to be valid
and legal.
The brief facts of the case are that in response to
advertisement issued by the respondent Corporation, the
petitioner had submitted an application dated 22.12.2018,
wherein, in the space for mentioning the plot number, the
petitioner had mentioned the plot no. as 633 and in support
thereof a lease deed dated 20.12.2018 was submitted,
however, on account of inadvertence the plot number in the
said lease deed had been mentioned as 866 which was
detected at the time of field verification by the officials of the
respondent company. It is the further case of the petitioner
that she was declared as a successful candidate in the draw of
lots held on 02.07.2019 and subsequently she has also got the
lease deed dated 20.12.2018 corrected vide rectification deed
dated 17.03.2020, which has also been handed over to the
respondent Corporation. In this regard, it has been pointed out
Patna High Court CWJC No.7292 of 2020 dt.14-09-2020
3/24
that the boundary and area of the land mentioned in both the
lease deed dated 20.12.2018 and the rectification deed dated
17.03.2020are one and the same which goes to further buttress the case of the petitioner to the effect that on account of typographical error, the plot number was wrongly mentioned as 866 in the lease deed dated 20.12.2018 instead of 633. Nonetheless, the respondent corporation has rejected the case of the petitioner for grant of retail outlet dealership vide letter dated 21.04.2020.
The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the error on the part of the petitioner in mentioning wrong plot number in the original lease deed is on account of an inadvertent mistake and is in fact a rectifiable error. It is further submitted that the case of the petitioner is not that of change of plot number but only pertains to correction of plot number in the lease deed inasmuch as the petitioner has though mentioned the correct plot number in the application but on account of typographical error, the wrong plot No. has been mentioned in the lease deed dated 20.12.2018, for rectification whereof, a rectification deed dated 17.03.2020 has been subsequently furnished by the petitioner. The learned counsel Patna High Court CWJC No.7292 of 2020 dt.14-09-2020 4/24 for the petitioner has further submitted that the boundary of the land determines the identity of the land and any change in the area or plot number is bound to alter the boundary enclosing the land. Thus, it is submitted that as far as the present case is concerned, the boundary, executant and area as stated in the original lease deed dated 20.12.2018 and that stated in the rectification deed dated 17.03.2020 are one and the same, which further goes to fortify the case of the petitioner to the extent that the error sought to be rectified does not lead to any change in location/site of the offered plot as a whole but only the inadvertent error of mentioning the wrong plot no. in the lease deed dated 20.12.2018 is being rectified. In this regard, the learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to two judgments which are being enumerated herein below along with the relevant extracts thereof:-
(i) AIR 1963 SC 1879 (Sheodhyan Singh &Ors. vs. Sanichara Kuer & ors.), paragraph nos. 6 &7 whereof are reproduced herein below:-
"6. In the present appeal, the learned counsel for the respondents does not ask us to go beyond the sale certificate and the final decree for sale; his Patna High Court CWJC No.7292 of 2020 dt.14-09-2020 5/24 contention is that there is a mere mis-description of the plot number in the two documents and that the identity of the plot sold is clear from the circumstances which we have already set out above. He relies on Thakur Barmha v. Jiban Ram Marwari [(1913) LR 41 IA 38]. In that case what had happened was that the judgment-debtor owned a mahal in which ten annas share was mortgaged while the remainder was free from encumbrances. A creditor of his attached and put up for sale six annas share out of the mortgaged share. The property attached was sold. When the auction purchasers applied for the sale certificate they alleged that a mistake had been made in the schedule of the property to be sold in that the word "not" had been omitted from the description of the six annas share and that the property should have been described as being six annas not mortgaged. This prayer of theirs was allowed by the executing court and the appeal to the High Court failed. On appeal to the Privy Council, it was held that in a judicial sale only the property attached can be sold and that property is conclusively described in and by the schedule to which the attachment refers, namely, the six annas share subject to an existing mortgage. The Privy Council therefore allowed the appeal and Patna High Court CWJC No.7292 of 2020 dt.14-09-2020 6/24 observed that a case of mis-description could be treated as a mere irregularity; but the case before them was a case of identity and not of mis- description. It was pointed out that a property fully identified in the schedule may be in some respects mis-described, which would be a different case. Thus the effect of this decision is that where there is no doubt as to the identity and there is only mis-description that could be treated as a mere irregularity. Another case on which reliance has been placed on behalf of the respondents is Gossain Das Kundu v. Mrittunjoy Agnan Sardar [(1913) 18 CLJ 541 . In that case the land sold was described by boundaries and area; but the area seems to have been incorrect. It was held to be a case of mis-description of the area and the boundaries were held to prevail.
7. We are of opinion that the present case is analogous to a case of mis-description. As already pointed out the area, the khata number and the boundaries all refer to Plot No. 1060 and what has happened is that in writing the plot number, one zero has been missed and 1060 has become
160. It is also important to remember that there is no plot bearing No. 160 in Khata No. 97. In these circumstances we are of opinion that the High Court was right in holding that this is a case of Patna High Court CWJC No.7292 of 2020 dt.14-09-2020 7/24 mis-description only and that the identity of the property sold is well established, namely, that it is Plot No. 1060. The matter may have been different if no boundaries had been given in the final decree for sale as well as in the sale certificate and only the plot number was mentioned. But where we have both the boundaries and the plot number and the circumstances are as in this case, the mistake in the plot number must be treated as a mere mis-description which does not affect the identity of the property sold. The contention of the appellants therefore with respect to this plot must fail."
(ii) 2013 (3) PLJR 751 (Chamru Yadav vs. Tanuk Lal Yadav), paragraph nos. 26 & 28 whereof are reproduced herein below:-
"26. Mr. Dronacharya, learned counsel for the respondents first set, on the other hand, has submitted that the boundary and area of the land, as described in the mortgage deed, decree, sale certificate and delivery of possession are identical on which the title has been claimed by the plaintiffs. Merely, on the basis that khesra No. was wrongly recorded in such deed or document, the plaintiffs' title cannot be denied. He submits that the present second appeal does not involve any substantial question of law as this issue has been settled by the Supreme Court in case of Patna High Court CWJC No.7292 of 2020 dt.14-09-2020 8/24 Sheodhyan Singh and Others vs. Sanichara Kuer, 1962 BLJR 273. He has also referred to a judgment of Calcutta High Court reported in AIR 1979 Calcutta 50, Roy and Co. and Another vs. NaniBala, in support of his contention.
28. In the case of Roy & Company (supra) the Calcutta High Court held that in case of dispute between area and boundary, description of boundary will prevail."
The learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that error in mentioning the plot number/Khesra number in the lease deed is merely a minor typographical error which can be waived and non-suiting a candidate only on the ground of error in plot number in the lease deed, when the offered land, as mentioned in the application form, carries the same identity/boundaries as the land mentioned in the lease deed, would amount to taking a hyper technical view of the matter. It is further submitted that the Hon'ble Apex Court has drawn a distinction between an essential and non-essential condition of eligibility and as far as the error in question in the present case is concerned, the same is a rectifiable deficiency. On the said issues, the learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to various judgments which are enumerated herein below along with their relevant paragraphs:-
Patna High Court CWJC No.7292 of 2020 dt.14-09-2020 9/24
(i) (1991) 3 SCC 273 (Poddar Steel Corporation vs. Ganesh Engineering Works &Ors.); paragraph no. 6 whereof is reproduced herein below:-
"6. It is true that in submitting its tender accompanied by a cheque of the Union Bank of India and not of the State Bank clause 6 of the tender notice was not obeyed literally, but the question is as to whether the said non-compliance deprived the Diesel Locomotive Works of the authority to accept the bid. As a matter of general proposition it cannot be held that an authority inviting tenders is bound to give effect to every term mentioned in the notice in meticulous detail, and is not entitled to waive even a technical irregularity of little or no significance. The requirements in a tender notice can be classified into two categories -- those which lay down the essential conditions of eligibility and the others which are merely ancillary or subsidiary with the main object to be achieved by the condition. In the first case the authority issuing the tender may be required to enforce them rigidly. In the other cases it must be open to the authority to deviate from and not to insist upon the strict literal compliance of the condition in appropriate cases. This aspect was examined by this Court in C.J.
Patna High Court CWJC No.7292 of 2020 dt.14-09-2020 10/24 Fernandez v. State of Karnataka [(1990) 2 SCC 488] a case dealing with tenders. Although not in an entirely identical situation as the present one, the observations in the judgment support our view. The High Court has, in the impugned decision, relied upon Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. International Airport Authority of India [(1979) 3 SCC 489] but has failed to appreciate that the reported case belonged to the first category where the strict compliance of the condition could be insisted upon. The authority in that case, by not insisting upon the requirement in the tender notice which was an essential condition of eligibility, bestowed a favour on one of the bidders, which amounted to illegal discrimination. The judgment indicates that the court closely examined the nature of the condition which had been relaxed and its impact before answering the question whether it could have validly condoned the shortcoming in the tender in question. This part of the judgment demonstrates the difference between the two categories of the conditions discussed above. However it remains to be seen as to which of the two clauses, the present case belongs."
(ii) 2019 (2)PLJR 1180 (Aarpee Infra Projects (P) Ltd. vs. Patna High Court CWJC No.7292 of 2020 dt.14-09-2020 11/24 The State of Bihar &Ors.); paragraph nos. 15, 16 and 20 whereof are reproduced herein below:-
"15. It is evident from the bank guarantee that the mistake in respect of the division's name is not such that it would render the bank guarantee invalid or unexecutable. In any case the bank has in so many words mentioned the name of work against which the guarantee has been offered and the fact that it has been addressed to the Executive Engineer, RCD, Road Division, Purnea and uses the word 'in your favour' in the covering letter clearly shows that the bank has committed to pay the guaranteed amount to the beneficiary. To me it appears that it is nothing but a typographical error in usual course of banking Patna High Court CWJC No.2991 of 2019 dt.29-03- 2019 transaction for which the petitioner cannot be held responsible and for this reason alone if his tender is not opened at this stage, it will cause prejudice to the petitioner inasmuch as the petitioner may lose it's chance to get the above contract.
16. It is also clear from the facts that the petitioner had immediately on knowing the reason from the screen shot submitted his representations to the Executive Engineer, RCD, Road Division, Purnea as also the Principal Secretary of the Department vide Annexure-4 and 4/A. The petitioner submitted an amendment letter from the bank immediately on 13.02.2019. It is also an admitted position that the financial bid of none of the tenderers have been Patna High Court CWJC No.7292 of 2020 dt.14-09-2020 12/24 opened, therefore, this Court finds no reason as to why this inadvertent mistake on the part of the bank be allowed to be a reason for not opening of the technical bid of the petitioner.
20. In the present case also, I have noticed that in the covering letter addressed to the Executive Engineer, RCD, Road Division, Purnea the bank had clearly printed its address for verification of the correctness of the bank guarantee if required and therefore it was open for the respondent authorities to bring the discrepancy to the notice of the bank and verify the same when it was noticed before opening of the technical bid. In other words, the bank guarantee could have been verified and bank could have made necessary correction which was nothing but a kind of typographical error."
(iii) 2002 SCC online Bom. 964 (Agrawal Roadlines Private Limited vs. Indian Oil Corporation Limited & Ors.); paragraph no. 8 whereof is reproduced herein below:-
"8. The aforesaid law laid down by the Apex Court in Poddar Steel Corporation is squarely and fully applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. The only mistake committed by the petitioners was that they annexed the demand draft issued in favour of other Corporation. That was only a technical irregularity and did not in the Patna High Court CWJC No.7292 of 2020 dt.14-09-2020 13/24 facts of the case could be said to violate the essential conditions of the tender notice. It was only because of inadvertence that the demand drafts purchased by the petitioners got interchanged. Under the terms and conditions of the tender notice, inter alia, for the satisfaction of financial credibility of the bidder, the condition is that earnest money of Rs. 12000/- by way of crossed demand draft/pay order from the scheduled bank in favour of concerned corporation is deposited with the bid. The Corporations, viz. IOC, HPCL and BPCL ought not to have given strict construction to clause 7 of the tender which provided that the earnest money deposit as provided in clauses 5 and 6 by crossed Demand Draft/Pay Order drawn on any Scheduled Bank, be in favour of concerned Corporation like Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. (MD), Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. (MD) and Hindustan Petroleum Corporation (MD). The essential clause concerning an interest free earnest money deposit of Rs. 12000/- finds place in clause 6 which, of course, was required to be construed strictly, but clause 7 could not have been given effect in meticulous detail as has been sought to be given when the petitioners did purchase demand draft in favour of concerned corporation in the required Patna High Court CWJC No.7292 of 2020 dt.14-09-2020 14/24 sum from scheduled bank - the only mistake, these drafts got interchanged at the time of submission of tenders and this mistake reflected at all necessarily places in the tender form. The contention of Mr. Siodia that this Court should not interfere in administrative decision when admittedly there was some mistake by the petitioners in the facts of the present case does not deserve to be accepted. If an administrative decision is based on hypertechnical approach by treating a non-essential condition of the tender notice as essential condition, such administrative decision shall be ceased to be fair and lack reasonableness warranting interference in suitable and deserving cases under Article 226."
(iv) (2003) 10 SCC 681 (K. Vinod Kumar vs. S. Palanisamy & Ors.); paragraph no. 8 whereof is reproduced herein below:-
"8. So far as the requirement of Instruction (g) as stated above is concerned, it does not appear to be mandatory. The purpose of furnishing particulars of land in the application is to enable a determination as to whether the specified place would accommodate the godown facilities and distributorship arrangements from a commercial angle. This requirement is mandatory but Patna High Court CWJC No.7292 of 2020 dt.14-09-2020 15/24 satisfying the requirement at the stage of making the application is only directory. The particulars of such land can be made available even subsequent to the filing of the application, and may even be subsequent to the selection. The consequence of failure to make the suitable land available within a period of two months from the date of selection is that the selection of such candidate would be liable to be cancelled."
Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent Corporation has submitted, by referring to the counter affidavit filed in the present case, that the petitioner had submitted her application dated 22.12.2018 for allotment of retail outlet at the location in question wherein she had mentioned that she is offering land appertaining to Khesra No. 633, however, the same upon scrutiny was not found to be correct inasmuch as she had not submitted any lease deed pertaining to Khesra No.
633. Even thereafter, during the visit of the Land Evaluation Committee on 17.02.2020, the petitioner was unable to produce any document in support of her ownership of the offered plot i.e. Khesra No. 633 as mentioned in her application form. It is also submitted that the rectification deed, which has been produced by the petitioner subsequently cannot be Patna High Court CWJC No.7292 of 2020 dt.14-09-2020 16/24 accepted inasmuch as the same is neither in consonance with the specific guidelines mentioned in the selection brochure nor the same is such a miniscule factor that it can be considered as a rectifiable deficiency, hence the candidature of the petitioner has been rightly relegated, vide the impugned E-mail communication dated 16.03.2020.
The learned counsel for the respondent Corporation has further submitted that column no. 4 (v) (a) of the brochure for selection of dealers for regular and rural retail outlets dated 24.11.2018 prescribes that every land should be available with the applicant as on the date of application. Thus, in the present case since the petitioner did not own any lease hold right pertaining to the land appertaining to Khesra No. 633, as on the date of her application, her candidature has rightly been rejected by the respondent Corporation. It is also submitted that the said deficiency is a non-rectifiable deficiency as is mentioned in the "FAQ for field on dealers selection guidelines"
of the respondent Corporation, which has been annexed as Annexure-R/3 to the counter affidavit and the same under the heading land details clearly prescribes that any error regarding change in Khesra number/ Khatauni/Gut number/Survey Patna High Court CWJC No.7292 of 2020 dt.14-09-2020 17/24 number etc. is a non-rectifiable deficiency. Thus, it is submitted that the petitioner has got no case and the present writ petition is liable to be dismissed.
The learned counsel for the respondent-Corporation has relied upon a judgment reported in 2009(3) PLJR 591 (Neeraj Kumar vs. The Indian Oil Corporation &Ors.), paragraph no. 10 whereof is reproduced herein below:-
'10. In my view, Mr. Chatterjee is correct, for a simple reason that once a party is required to make an application and lay claims on basis of certain documents knowing fully well that the documents have to be evaluated, accordingly he makes an application then his right to be considered crystallizes on the day the application is made and that can not be altered subsequently because if that is permitted then all candidates would be changing their basic papers at their free will, till the time of Interview. The cut off is the date when application is filed and subsequent documents can not be looked into."
Yet another judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondent Corporation is the one reported in 2019(3) PLJR 1042 (Indian Oil Corporation vs. Rupesh Kumar Verma), Patna High Court CWJC No.7292 of 2020 dt.14-09-2020 18/24 paragraph no.10 whereof is reproduced herein below:-
"10. We have considered the submissions raised and we find that the advertisement categorically prescribes that a candidate would be rendered ineligible if the information given amounts to withholding or concealing any fact or tendering of an incorrect information or a false information that would result in affecting the eligibility of the candidate. The three categories which have been specifically provided have, therefore, to be read as indicated therein and, in our considered opinion, any incorrect information would affect the eligibility of a candidate. In the instant case, it is admitted on record that the information given by the respondent- petitioner with regard to the plot of the land and khata number in the application form was an incorrect information and was, therefore, a wrong information. The plot number and the khata number was 123 and 356 respectively. This mistake was accepted by the respondent-petitioner himself when he tendered the rectification deed on 12th of June, 2018 long after the expiry of the last date of the application form. There is a substantial variation in the number of khata and the plot that was subsequently tendered as Khata No.300 with Plot No.122 and the same, in our opinion, is not such an error which can be termed as a typographical error at least in the application form of the respondent-petitioner. The error may have occurred in the deed for which the respondent-petitioner is clearly responsible and this Patna High Court CWJC No.7292 of 2020 dt.14-09-2020 19/24 stands admitted by him in view of the rectification deed tendered later on. Consequently, the information as contained in the application form and the deed which was filed along with the same palpably gave an incorrect information with regard to the khata and the plot number. This therefore disentitled the respondent- petitioner from being treated as an eligible candidate. The conclusion drawn by the learned Single Judge bereft of these facts therefore cannot stand the scrutiny of law. Shri K. D. Chatterji, learned Senior Counsel for the appellants is, therefore, correct in his submission that the Division Bench Judgment as relied upon by the appellants in the case of M/s Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. &Anr. vs. Raj Kumar Jha & Ors. (supra) squarely applies on the facts of the present case."
Lastly, the learned counsel for the respondent Corporation has relied on a judgment reported in 2012(2) PLJR 783 (M/s. Indian Oil Corporation vs. Raj Kumar Jha) to contend that the Corporation being State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution is supposed to act fairly, reasonably and uniformly and has to be objective in its approach. Hence, once standard is set out in the advertisement, the Corporation has to adhere to the said standard without any violation and if the Corporation would allow any alteration of the same, the same will amount to subjective approach, which has been deprecated Patna High Court CWJC No.7292 of 2020 dt.14-09-2020 20/24 by the learned Courts. The learned counsel for the respondent Corporation has also submitted that the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner are distinguishable in the facts and circumstances of the present case.
I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the materials on record as also perused the judgments referred to herein above by the learned counsel for the respective parties. It is apparent from the materials on record that the petitioner had mentioned the correct offered plot number i.e. plot no. 633 in the application dated 22.12.2018, however, it appears that on account of inadvertence the plot number had been mentioned wrongly in the lease deed dated 20.12.2018 as plot no. 866, though the boundaries were rightly mentioned and upon the petitioner having come to know about the said discrepancy, she had promptly submitted a rectification deed dated 17.03.2020, mentioning the correct plot no. 633 and more importantly, the boundaries of the plot mentioned in the said rectification deed are exactly similar to the ones mentioned in the original lease deed dated 20.12.2018. Nonetheless, this Court finds that the respondents have raised two issues:-
Patna High Court CWJC No.7292 of 2020 dt.14-09-2020 21/24
(i) Regarding the petitioner not fulfilling the prescribed eligibility criteria of availability of land with her as on the date of application, and
(ii) The error in mentioning the land details being a non-
rectifiable deficiency.
This Court finds that as far as the first issue is concerned, regarding availability of the offered land with the applicant as on the date of application, no material has been brought on record by the respondent Corporation to show that the offered land i.e. plot no. 633 was not available with the applicant as on the date of application whereas on the contrary the petitioner has produced a rectification deed dated 17.03.2020 whereby the typographical error regarding mentioning of plot number in the original lease deed dated 20.12.2018 has been rectified and in fact the boundaries of the land in question mentioned in both the deeds are also same and similar, thus there is no reason to doubt about the availability of plot no. 633 with the petitioner as on the date of submitting the application i.e. on 22.12.2018. In fact the judgment referred to by the learned counsel for the petitioner, rendered in the case of Sheodhyan Singh (supra) and Chamru Yadav (supra), clearly buttress the stand of the petitioner on this score. On the contrary, this Court Patna High Court CWJC No.7292 of 2020 dt.14-09-2020 22/24 further finds that the judgment referred to by the learned counsel for the respondent Corporation in the case of Neeraj Kumar (supra) is distinguishable in the facts and circumstances of the present case.
Now, coming to the second issue raised by the respondent Corporation that the error in question is non- rectifiable, this Court finds from the "FAQ for field on dealers selection guidelines" that what has been mentioned as a non- rectifiable deficiency is that the Khesra number/ Khatauni/Gut number/Survey number etc. cannot be changed as far as land details mentioned in the application is concerned, however, in the present case, the petitioner is not seeking any change in the land details, as far as her application dated 22.12.2018 is concerned, thus this Court holds that the error in question does not fall under the non-rectifiable category. The judgment referred to by the learned counsel for the petitioner, rendered in the case of Mukesh Kumar Verma (Supra) is clearly distinguishable in the facts and circumstances of the present case inasmuch as in the said case the learned Division Bench was considering a case where incorrect plot number/ Khesra number was stated in the application itself and the same was Patna High Court CWJC No.7292 of 2020 dt.14-09-2020 23/24 being sought to be rectified whereas in the present case correct information i.e. correct plot number has been mentioned in the application filed by the petitioner herein. Moreover, the said Judgment also stands distinguished by a coordinate Bench of this Court in a case reported in 2019(4) PLJR 663 (Shankar Kumar Bhagat vs. The Indian Oil Corporation &Ors.). This Court is of the further view that since the error in question does not fall within the non-rectifiable category, the same can very well be rectified and moreover, the respondent Corporation being State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India should act fairly and should not take a hyper-technical view of the matter inasmuch as though the petitioner has rightly mentioned the plot number in her application dated 22.12.2018 but on account of inadvertence the plot number has been wrongly mentioned in the lease deed dated 20.12.2018, which has already stood rectified vide the rectification deed dated 17.03.2020. Consequently, this Court holds that the error in question i.e. wrong mentioning of the plot number in the lease deed dated 20.12.2018, though not in the application form, which has also stood corrected vide the rectification deed dated 17.03.2020, does not violate any Patna High Court CWJC No.7292 of 2020 dt.14-09-2020 24/24 essential condition of the advertisement/brochure of the respondent Corporation/FAQ in question, so as to warrant a hyper technical approach by the respondent Corporation, thus the impugned action of the respondent Corporation, as contained in the letter dated 21.04.2020 and in the E-mail communication dated 16.03.2020, declaring the candidature of the petitioner to be ineligible, is declared to be unreasonable, arbitrary and illegal. Accordingly, the impugned letter dated 21.04.2020 issued by the Chief Divisional Retail Sales Manager, Begusarai Divisional Office, I.O.C.L. as also the E-mail communication dated 16.03.2020 issued by Begusarai Regional Office, I.O.C.L., is hereby set aside and the respondents are directed to re-consider the case of the petitioner for grant of retail outlet dealership, in accordance with law.
The writ petition stands allowed.
(Mohit Kumar Shah, J) S.Sb/-
AFR/NAFR CAV DATE 10.09.2020 Uploading Date 15.09.2020 Transmission Date