SATYENDRA KUMAR YADAV Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Ram Raj Prajapati, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Gaurav Kumar Chand, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 and Sri Nishant Mehrotra, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 and perused the record.

(2.) Sri Nishant Mehrotra, learned counsel for the respondents has obtained instructions in the matter from time to time and has placed the same on record for our perusal and states that he does not wish to file any affidavit. Accordingly, the instant matter is being disposed of.

(3.) The facts, in brief, necessary for decision of the instant petition are that the petitioner applied online on 22/12/2018 for allotment of retail outlet dealership at Gram Chhaparapuri, Pargana Mahuli Purab Tehsil Dhanghata, District Sant Kabir Nagar under OBC category in pursuance of advertisement dtd. 25/11/2018 issued by Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited (in short 'HPCL'). The petitioner offered, for setting up of the retail outlet, a piece of land owned by his mother on long term lease for a period of nineteen years and eleven months. The petitioner's application was considered by HPCL along with other applicants falling under Group 1. It is pertinent to note that Group 1 applicants are those, who have suitable piece of land in the advertised location/area or long term lease for a period of minimum nineteen years and eleven months. The petitioner was found successful in the Draw of Lots of Group 1 applicants held on 4/7/2019. He was intimated about the same by HPCL by letter dtd. 5/7/2019 and was required to complete various formalities including the one relating to submission of certain documents. Amongst other, the documents required to be submitted were declaration in Appendix- III A (for offer of land) and Appendix- III B (Advocate's letter). It further stipulated that verification of all attested copies with the original documents would be done during Field Verification of Credentials and that applicant should be in possession of original documents, photostat whereof had been submitted. It further provided that the candidature would be cancelled, in case, initial security deposit is not remitted or the documents listed above, are not submitted within ten days from the date of intimation. It seems that the petitioner in purported compliance of the requirements contained in letter dtd. 5/7/2019 submitted various documents on 11/7/2019 enclosing therewith affidavit of his mother dtd. 10/7/2019 in Appendix- III A and Certificate of Advocate in Appendix- III B (dt. 22/12/2018). Respondent No. 2 by order dtd. 18/7/2019 informed the petitioner that the documents submitted by him are not valid for considering the offer of land in Group I. Accordingly, he was declared ineligible. He was also informed that now his candidature would be considered along with Group III applicants as per guidelines. On receipt of the said letter, the petitioner made a representation on 24/7/2019 stating therein that, by inadvertence, he had filed a recent affidavit of his mother in Appendix- III A albeit having filed the Declaration of Advocate in form III B of a date on which application was filed. He further stated that at the time of submitting the documents, he was informed that documents were in order. Now, he has come to know that his candidature has been rejected finding fault with the affidavit of his mother in Appendix- III A inasmuch as it was not of a date on which original application was filed or prior to it. He submitted that affidavit of his mother in Appendix- III A, which was dtd. 17/12/2018, i.e. prior to the date on which the application was submitted (22/12/2018) was in his possession and the same was duly enclosed with the representation, with prayer to consider the same. By the impugned order dtd. 30/12/2019, the respondent No. 2 has declined to consider the affidavit dtd. 17/12/2018 on the ground that it has been submitted after due date of submission of documents.