DANIALKING MARWEIN Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner by way of the instant writ petition is before this Court praying for setting aside of the impugned letters dtd. 6/1/2024 and 16/3/2024, whereby the petitioner was declared not eligible for RO dealership (Retail Outlet) due to the reason of mismatch of letters in the hard copy of the Pan Card with the uploaded one.

(2.) The brief facts are that the petitioner in response to an advertisement for appointment of RO dealership was provisionally selected vide letter dtd. 29/12/2023 and had paid the initial security deposit of Rs.20,000.00 and had also submitted all requisite documents including the Pan Card. However, vide the impugned letter dtd. 6/1/2024, the respondent company informed the petitioner that he was not eligible for RO dealership due to the reason of mismatch in the uploaded number of the Pan Card, where in the hard copy the number was BYJPD0795F, the uploaded number was BJYPD0795F. Against the said rejection, the petitioner was asked to submit a representation if aggrieved and on submission of the same, vide the impugned letter dtd. 16/3/2024, the representation was rejected.

(3.) As the said disposal of the representation was not to the knowledge of the petitioner initially, WP(C). No. 74 of 2024 was filed against the nondisposal of the representation and during the proceedings, the respondent had informed this Court that with the Model Code of Conduct in place, the RO dealership had not been settled with any other party. On an affidavit filed by the respondent company, bringing on record the impugned order dtd. 16/3/2024, rejecting the representation of the petitioner, WP(C). No. 74 of 2024 was withdrawn on 12/4/2024 and the instant writ petition was then filed on 17/4/2024.