- (1.) IN this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 20.12.2010 contained in Reference No. RKB/RET (Annexure -5) issued by the respondent No.2 whereby the said respondent has rejected the petitioner's application for dealership on the ground that the petitioner has not submitted the affidavit in original along with the application, as per the Appendix 'A'.
(2.) THE said order has been challenged by the petitioner mainly on two grounds. Firstly, that though the petitioner had submitted the affidavit in original along with the application, as per the Appendix 'A', the same has been replaced by the respondents only in order to favour L1 tenderer. Secondly, that the affidavit, as per the Appendix 'A', is not required in original. Clause 12(H) requires submission of certified copies of the original documents, subject to the condition that the original has to be produced at the time of interview, if needed. It has been submitted that even if there was some shortage in the documents, the petitioner was not given any opportunity to meet out the same and the alleged shortage of the documents cannot be said to be a material shortage or deficiency in the application. The impugned order is, thus, unjust, arbitrary and illegal and is liable to be quashed.
(3.) THE writ petition has been contested by the respondents -Corporation. It has been, inter alia, stated that Clause 12(G) of the 'Appendix 'A' requires that the original affidavit along with the application has to be submitted with the application. But the petitioner has not enclosed the original affidavit as per the Appendix 'A' and as such the petitioner's application has been rejected due to the said deficiency. The respondents have denied the allegation that they have connived with L1 and that the application of the petitioner was tampered with in any way.;