Smt. Kanta Pandey vs Union Of India Thru' Its Secy. & 4 Others on 23 February, 2015

[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Allahabad High Court

Smt. Kanta Pandey vs Union Of India Thru' Its Secy. & 4 Others on 23 February, 2015

Equivalent citations: AIR 2016 (NOC) 86 (ALL.), 2015 (6) ALJ 342

Three writ petitions have been filed by the same petitioner namely Smt. Kanta Pandey in the matter of her being excluded from the zone of consideration for allotment of Retail Outlet Dealership in open women category.

The petitioner has opted for six locations under the corpus fund facilities. From the record of the present writ petition it is apparent that the petitioner is a widow. She has ticked column no.4 of the affidavit in the prescribed proforma under the advertisement and brochure published by the Oil Company while she has struck off clause 2 and 3. Clause 4 of the affidavit reads as follows:-

"4 fd eSa fo/kok gwW vkSj eSaus nksckjk fookg ugha fd;k gSA ¼ ;fn ykxw u gks rks gVk nsa½"

She has been excluded in the matter of consideration by the Oil Company on the ground that she has not disclosed information pertaining to her father, mother, unmarried brother and sister having not been awarded any dealership by any oil company as required under clause 2 and further she has not disclosed the factum of dealership having not been awarded in favour of her husband, unmarried daughter and son by any Oil Company. According to the Oil Company, the petitioner had incorrectly scored out column no.2 and column no. 3 which pertains to declaration by an unmarried women more than 40 years age.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted before us that column nos.2 and 3 are decree referable to different category of female candidate. Clause 2(a) is for unmarried female and requires her to declaration as to whether her father, mother and unmarried brother and unmarried sister have been awarded any dealership while column no.2 (b) deals with the married woman and requires her to make declaration in respect of husband, unmarried son and daughter. Column no.3 deals with unmarried females more than 40 years of age. Column no. 4 deals with widow. Since the petitioner was a widow, she correctly scored out column nos. 2 and 3 and ticked column no.4. It is therefore submitted that the decision of the Oil Company for non-suiting the petitioner is illegal and unsustainable in the eye of law.

Learned counsel for the Oil Company submits that the petitioner was under legal obligations to score out the first line of column no.2(a) or 2(b) and supply the information in respect of her family member having being awarded dealership by the Oil Company or not as per the multiple dealer norms. It is, therefore, the case of the Oil Company that it has rightly excluded the petitioner from the zone of consideration because of non discloser of information asked for under clause 2of the proforma affidavit.

Counsel for the petitioner in rejoinder submits that the drafting of the proforma affidavit by the Oil Corporation is itself defective. Clause 2(a) deals with married female and there is a request to disclose as to whether the relatives as detailed therein having dealership of any oil company or not. Clause 2(b) of tallies of unmarried female who has to be supply the information with respect to father, mother and unmarried sister and brother. He submits that none of the clauses are attracted in the case of widow who is covered by column 4 which does not require disclosure of any such information. He submits that if the petitioner has read the clause in the manner stated in the affidavit then she has not committed any fault. She has been illegally excluded from zone of consideration.

We are agreement with contention raised on behalf of petitioner, the clause pertaining to the information to be disclosed by the widow as per clause 4 of the proforma affidavit itself is defective. If there was a requirement of information from widow about the relations who fall within the prohibited degree having dealership from oil company then it would have been appropriate to disclose the relations for whom such information is required by the Oil Company in clause 4 in the case of married and unmarried female under Clause 2(a) and 2(b). If the petitioner has read the Clause 4 in the manner as suggested above we find no illegality therein. She has understood the requirements as flows as simple reading of Clause 4.

In view of the aforesaid, we find that the order of the Corporation rejecting the candidature of the petitioner is based on complete misreading of the Clause 4 of the affidavit as prescribed by the Corporation itself. No illegality has been committed by the petitioner by scoring out Clause nos. 2 and 3.

In the fact of the case, the writ petitions are allowed. The impugned orders dated 04.04.2014 and 07.04.2014 are hereby quashed.

Let the candidature of the petitioner in respect of the locations for which she submitted her application excluding the location at Allahabad where letter of intent has already been issued, be considered. We clarify that this order will not mean to confer any right upon the petitioner to be awarded the dealership if any relations within the prohibited degree as per the multiple dealership norms is found to be a dealer of the Oil Corporation.

Order Date :- 23.2.2015 Ajay

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Allahabad High Court