- (1.) Petitioners are claiming to be the partners of a firm. However, we do not find the name of the partnership firm. Both the partners have jointly applied for allotment of retail outlet of petroleum products of the Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., respondents herein. The same was rejected vide order dated 5.9.2011 which is under challenge herein. According to the corporation, as per the brochure, for selection of petrol-diesel outlet, original of the documents alongwith the affidavit will be annexed with individual application of the partners which were not available in the present case.
(2.) According to the petitioners, such rejection is technical in nature which can be condoned by the corporation on the basis of a judgment and order of a Division Bench of this Court dated 257.2011 in Writ C No. 38723 of 2011 Smt. Kahkasa Bee v. Union of India and Another) which is quoted herein: Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Prakash Padia, learned Counsel for the respondents. By this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the order dated 4th May, 2011 as well as the order dated 23rd May, 2011 by which the petitioner has been informed that petitioner's application is rejected. The petitioner has made an application in response to advertisement dated 20th December, 2010 for retail outlet. In the affidavit, which was filed although the petitioner mentioned that she is married but she did not mention that her husband does not have the dealership. The petitioner on 10th May, 2010 has submitted another affidavit clearly stating that her husband does not have a dealership. The application has been rejected only on the ground that in the affidavit the word husband has been missing, which is apparent from the letter dated 4th May, 2011. Earlier also an application has been made in which it was stated that the petitioner is married but it was not mentioned that her husband does not have the retail outlet. The mistake appears to be inadvertent and due to oversight We are of the view that on such ground the application was not liable to be rejected and petitioner's application ought to have been considered. In view of the above, we direct the respondents to consider the petitioner also eligible and permit her participation in accordance with law. Subject to above, the writ petition stands disposed of.
(3.) In any event, due to non availability of learned counsel appearing for the Corporation and/or lack of instruction thereof the matter was adjourned till today. Today, learned counsel appearing for the Corporation has stated that in the brochure there is a clause i.e. Clause 4.3 (C) which is as follows: (c) PARTNERSHIPS All partners should individually fulfill the eligibility criteria as specified at 4(A) and 4(B) and each partner should submit separate application forms alongwith separate application fee. However, the applications should be clubbed together. If called for interview, all of them must appear for interview. They also have to submit a copy of the partnership deed. Sub clause e,f,g,h of Clause 10 of the brochure speaks as follows: (e) Originals of the Affidavits and self attested copies of the other ' supporting documents should be submitted alongwith the completed application form, duly signed. (f) The applicant should affix his/her recent photographs in the space provided for in the application form. (g) No addition/deletion/alteration will be permitted in the application once it is submitted. (h) No additional documents whatsoever will be accepted or considered after the cut off date of the application.;