Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

are 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 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:-

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 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 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."

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:-

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 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 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.