# Satyendra Kumar Yadav v. U.O.I. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2022) 9 ILRA 1734
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2022-05-04
- **Case number:** Writ C No. 30563 of 2021
- **Bench:** Manoj Kumar Gupta, Dinesh Pathak
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/satyendra-kumar-yadav-v-u-o-i-anr-48980
- **Pages:** 7

## Headnote

A. Civil Law - Constitution of India, 1950Article 226- in the instant case, no
document was required to be filed along
with the application form- The procedure
followed by HPCL was that after an
applicant is selected, he is informed of the
same and at that stage, he was required
to submit documents, therefore, even if
the affidavit, as initially filed by the
petitioner, was of a subsequent date, it
would have no adverse effect nor would
render
his
candidature
ineligible-In
alternative,
he
submitted
that
the
petitioner having filed on record the
affidavit of his mother of a date prior to
submission of application form and there
being no time limit prescribed under the
brochure for supplying the documents, the
affidavit
filed
along
with
the
representation dated 24.7.2019 ought to
have been considered-the decision taken
by the respondent No. 2 declining to
consider the affidavit submitted by the
9 All. Satyendra Kumar Yadav Vs. U.O.I. & Anr.
1735
petitioner along with representation dated
24.7.2019
and
communication
dated
13.12.2019 are not sustainable and are
hereby quashed-Since the respondent has
yet not examined whether the said
affidavit is genuine or not but has refused
to consider the same solely on the ground
that it was filed beyond time prescribed
for submitting documents, therefore, we
grant
liberty
to
the
respondentCorporation to examine the said aspect
and if it is found that affidavit is a genuine
one, the respondent-Corporation shall
proceed to consider the same as due
compliance of the requirement relating to
submission of affidavit in Appendix- III A
and will proceed accordingly. (Para 1 to
17)

The writ petition is disposed of. (E-6)

List of Cases cited:

Nikhil S/o Dilipsing Rajput Vs U.O.I. & ors.
(2021) SCC OnLine Bom 489 Ganapathiraman
Srinivasan Vs IOC Ltd (2021) SCC OnLine Mad
1172

## Text

1734 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

13. It is well settled that the show cause
notice is issued to make the noticee understand
the allegation and facts as are levelled in the
show cause notice and it is aimed that putting
the noticee to whom the show cause notice is
issued on guard, this view has been expressed
by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Oryx Fisheries Private Limited vs. Union of
India and others; (2010) 13 SCC 427,
judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of
Siemens Public Communication Networks
Private Limited and another vs. Union of
India and others reported at (2008) 16 SCC
215 and explaining in Gorkha Security
Services vs. Government of NCT (2014) 9
SCC 105. In the present case, the show cause
notice is confined to the allegations against the
respondents receiving the supplies of goods
without the e-way bills, which fact has been
dealt with by the appellate authority after
perusing the invoices that the goods were
supplied to the respondents from Surat to Surat
and thus, the notification dated 19.09.2018
was clearly in favour of the respondents.

14. In the present case, no allegations
were levelled in the show cause notice to the
effect that the respondents had transferred the
finished goods for export from Surat to Kanpur
without e-way bill as such the arguments of Sri
Nag on that count are without any foundation
and thus liable to be rejected.

15. In view of the specific finding by the
Commissioner (Appeals) that the goods were
received by the respondents through e-way bills
within the same city, there was no requirement
of generation of e-way bills as provided under
the notification dated 19.09.2018, the said
finding has not been shown to be perverse or in
any way arbitrary or illegal in the arguments as
raised by Sri Nag and referred to above.

16. In view thereof, no interference is
called for in the appellate order.

17. The writ petition lacks merit and
is dismissed.
----------
(2022) 9 ILRA 1734
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 04.05.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA, J.
THE HON'BLE DINESH PATHAK, J.

Writ C No. 30563 of 2021

Satyendra Kumar Yadav ...Petitioner
Versus
U.O.I. & Anr. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Ram Raj Prajapati, Sri Dinesh Kumar
Maurya

Counsel for the Respondents:
A.S.G.I., Sri Gaurav Kumar Chand, Sri
Nishant Mehrotra

A. Civil Law - Constitution of India, 1950Article 226- in the instant case, no
document was required to be filed along
with the application form- The procedure
followed by HPCL was that after an
applicant is selected, he is informed of the
same and at that stage, he was required
to submit documents, therefore, even if
the affidavit, as initially filed by the
petitioner, was of a subsequent date, it
would have no adverse effect nor would
render
his
candidature
ineligible-In
alternative,
he
submitted
that
the
petitioner having filed on record the
affidavit of his mother of a date prior to
submission of application form and there
being no time limit prescribed under the
brochure for supplying the documents, the
affidavit
filed
along
with
the
representation dated 24.7.2019 ought to
have been considered-the decision taken
by the respondent No. 2 declining to
consider the affidavit submitted by the
9 All. Satyendra Kumar Yadav Vs. U.O.I. & Anr.
1735
petitioner along with representation dated
24.7.2019
and
communication
dated
13.12.2019 are not sustainable and are
hereby quashed-Since the respondent has
yet not examined whether the said
affidavit is genuine or not but has refused
to consider the same solely on the ground
that it was filed beyond time prescribed
for submitting documents, therefore, we
grant
liberty
to
the
respondentCorporation to examine the said aspect
and if it is found that affidavit is a genuine
one, the respondent-Corporation shall
proceed to consider the same as due
compliance of the requirement relating to
submission of affidavit in Appendix- III A
and will proceed accordingly. (Para 1 to
17)

The writ petition is disposed of. (E-6)

List of Cases cited:

Nikhil S/o Dilipsing Rajput Vs U.O.I. & ors.
(2021) SCC OnLine Bom 489 Ganapathiraman
Srinivasan Vs IOC Ltd (2021) SCC OnLine Mad
1172

(Delivered by Hon'ble Manoj Kumar
Gupta, J. &
Hon'ble Dinesh Pathak, J.)

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 dated 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 dated 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 dated
5.7.2019 submitted various documents on
11.7.2019 enclosing therewith affidavit of
his mother dated 10.7.2019 in Appendix-
1736 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
III A and Certificate of Advocate in
Appendix-
III
B
(dt.
22.12.2018).
Respondent No. 2 by order dated 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
dated 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 dated
30.12.2019, the respondent No. 2 has
declined to consider the affidavit dated
17.12.2018 on the ground that it has been
submitted after due date of submission of
documents.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner
submitted that the petitioner was in
possession of affidavit of his mother dated
17.12.2018 and Certificate of Advocate
dated 22.12.2018 (Appendix- III-A and IIIB respectively) of a date prior to the last
date specified in the advertisement for
submission of application form. At the time
of submission of documents, in pursuance
of letter dated 5.7.2019, one of the
document submitted by the petitioner was
Certificate of Advocate in Appendix- III B
dated 22.12.2018 (on which date, the
application form was submitted). However,
under some misapprehension, he filed
recent affidavit of his mother along with
other documents. As soon as the petitioner
came to know that respondents were
insisting for an affidavit of a date prior to
the submission of application form, the
petitioner immediately filed affidavit of his
mother dated 17.12.2018, which he was
having in his possession even at the time of
making
the
application,
along
with
representation
dated
24.7.2019
and
requested the respondents to consider the
same before proceeding any further in the
matter. However, the respondents, in a
wholly
illegal
and
arbitrary
manner,
refused to consider the same. Learned
counsel for the petitioner submitted that
submission of documents was a stage after
a
candidate
is
declared
successful,
therefore, in any event, the affidavit in
Appendix- III A, which was filed by the
petitioner along with his representation
dated 24.7.2019 ought to have been
considered. It is further submitted that the
time
limit
prescribed
for
filing
the
documents by letter dated 5.7.2019 was
directory in nature and not mandatory, and
in appropriate case, it can be relaxed. Thus,
once the petitioner had duly brought to the
notice of the respondents, the fact that the
petitioner was in possession of affidavit of
his mother dated 17.12.2018 but on account
of some confusion and inadvertence, he
filed a recent affidavit, the respondents
ought to have considered the same.

5. Sri Nishant Mehrotra, learned
counsel appearing on behalf of the
9 All. Satyendra Kumar Yadav Vs. U.O.I. & Anr.
1737
respondent No. 2 submitted that the
documents should be of a date on which
application was filed or prior to it. In
support of his contention, he has relied
upon Note 1, page 12 of the brochure
relating to selection of dealership for
regular and rural retail outlets, which reads
as follows:

"1. All certificate/documents
required for meeting Eligibility/Specific
eligibility criteria should be in possession
of the applicant and valid as on date of
application."

6. He has further placed reliance on the
stipulation in Clause 13 of the Application
Form to the effect that "The above piece of
plot owned by me/my family member (as
defined in clause 4(v)e of the Brochure)
either by way of ownership/long term
lease, would be made available for a
period of minimum 19 years 11 months as
advertised by the Oil Company Hindustan
Petroleum Corporation Ltd..

That as per the documents and
report from advocate, available with
me/us, my/our offer qualifies for being
considered under "GROUP 1" as defined
in clause 4 (v) of the Brochure for retail
outlet dealer selection by the Oil Company
Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd."

7. It is submitted that the applicant can
make the above declaration only if he was
already in possession of the documents
contemplated under Appendix- III A and III
B. It is urged that this is further clear from
paragraph 3 of the Appendix III A, which is
as follow:-

"3. That in case he/she/M/s.
(name of the Entity) is selected for RO
dealership I will either sell/transfer/lease
the above mentioned piece of land to Oil
Company
or
to
Shri/Smt/Kum/M/s.
(name of the Entity _____________ for
setting of Retail Outlet facilitates at the
above mentioned location as per the site
plan duly signed by me/all co-owners. In
case of lease, I further confirm that I
have no objection if the subject piece of
land
leased
to
Shri/Smt./Kum/M/s.
(name of the Entity) ______________ is
further leased/sub-leased to the Oil
Company by him/her as per terms of the
Oil Company."

8. Sri Nishant Mehrotra further
submitted that since the affidavit in
Appendix- III A was of a date subsequent
to the date of filing the application form,
the
respondent-Corporation
is
fully
justified in rejecting petitioner's application
under category Group 1. He further
submitted that since by letter dated
5.7.2019 while informing the petitioner
about his selection, he was granted ten
days' time to supply documents, therefore,
the documents supplied at a later stage
cannot be considered. In support of the said
submission, he placed reliance on judgment
of Bombay High Court in Nikhil S/o
Dilipsing Rajput Vs. Union of India and
others, 2021 SCC OnLine Bom 489 and
Madras High Court in Ganapathiraman
Srinivasan Vs. India Oil Corporation
Ltd., 2021 SCC OnLine Mad 1172.

9. In reply, learned counsel for the
petitioner tried to distinguish the above
judgments by contending that the selection
procedure followed in these cases required
the applicants to submit documents along
with application form, therefore, the
documents had to be in possession of the
applicant on the date of filing of the
application form and the said deficiency
cannot be made good at a later stage by
1738 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
submitting
certificate/affidavit
on
a
subsequent date. However, in the instant
case, no document was required to be filed
along with the application form. The
procedure followed by HPCL was that after
an applicant is selected, he is informed of
the same and at that stage, he was required
to submit documents, therefore, even if the
affidavit, as initially filed by the petitioner,
was of a subsequent date, it would have no
adverse effect nor would render his
candidature ineligible. In alternative, he
submitted that the petitioner having filed on
record the affidavit of his mother of a date
prior to submission of application form and
there being no time limit prescribed under
the brochure for supplying the documents,
the
affidavit
filed
along
with
the
representation dated 24.7.2019 ought to
have been considered.

10. We have considered the rival
submissions and perused the relevant
provisions of the brochure relating to
selection of dealership.

11. At the outset, we may mention
that we made a specific query from Sri
Nishant Mehrotra as to whether any
document was required to be filed along
with application form. He verified the said
fact from the officials of HPCL. In this
regard, email received by him from the
concerned official of HPCL has been
placed on record and it clarifies the position
thus:- "We seek documents including
Appendix IIIA only after selection of
applicant in Draw of lots/Bid opening."

12. The first issue for consideration is
whether the affidavit filed by the petitioner
in Appendix- III A of a date subsequent to
the submission of application form can be
considered as valid compliance of the
conditions as stipulated in the brochure. In
this regard, he may like to refer to Note. 1
at page 12 of the brochure quoted above.
According to it, all certificates/documents
required for meeting specific eligibility
criteria should be in possession of the
applicant and valid as on date of
application. According to the brochure,
there is a common eligibility criteria for all
applicants applying as individual as on date
of application, unless mentioned otherwise.
Thereunder, land and various conditions
and requirements attached thereto is also
covered. The other type of eligibility
prescribed is specific eligibility for those
applying in different reserved categories.

13. The stipulation in the application
form contained in Clause 13 to the effect
that piece of land offered belonging to
family member either by way of ownership
or long term lease would be made available
for a period of nineteen years and eleven
months as advertised by the Oil Company
as well as paragraph 3 of the form in
Appendix III A clearly reveals that an
applicant would be in position to make
concrete offer of land belonging to his
family members only if he is in possession
of affidavit in form III -A on or before the
date of submission of the application form.
The same view has been taken in the
judgments cited by the learned counsel for
the respondent No. 2. Therefore, we do not
find any force in the submission of learned
counsel for the petitioner that the affidavit
of his mother of a date subsequent to the
date of filing of the application form was
valid compliance of the requirements under
the selection procedure.

14. Coming to the alternative
submission, it may be noted that in the
selection procedure, which has been
adopted by respondent No. 2 in the case at
hand, indisputably documents were not
9 All. Satyendra Kumar Yadav Vs. U.O.I. & Anr.
1739
required to be submitted along with the
application form but after the applicant is
declared successful in Draw of Lots, which
has been confirmed by the official of
respondent No. 2 via email sent to their
counsel, Sri Nishant Mehrotra and a copy
of which, has also been placed on record.
In fact, the same is also clear from the
stipulation made in the communication
dated 5.7.2019 whereby the petitioner was
informed about his selection and was
required to submit various documents, one
amongst them being affidavit as prescribed
by Appendix- III A. Sri Nishant Mehrotra,
learned
counsel
for
the
respondentCorporation admits that, in the brochure,
there is no time limit prescribed for filing
of the documents, however as noted above,
the petitioner was provided ten days for
submitting the documents in question.
Indisputably, the petitioner had submitted
the documents on 11.7.2019 and along with
which, apart from the Certificate of
Advocate in Appendix- III B dated
22.12.2018
(the date
on
which
the
application form was submitted), the
petitioner also filed affidavit of his mother
in Appendix III A dated 10.7.2019. As
soon as the petitioner came to know that
the said affidavit is not acceptable to the
respondents, he submitted a representation
on 24.7.2019 and along with it, he filed an
affidavit of his mother in Appendix- III A
dated 17.12.2018, a date prior to the date of
submission of the application form.

15. Concededly, vide allotment letter
dated
5.7.2019,
the
petitioner
was
permitted
ten
days
time
to
supply
documents. Thus, even if it is assumed that
letter dated 5.7.2019 was communicated to
the petitioner on the same date, the said
period of ten days expired on 15.7.2019.
Consequently, it is evident that the affidavit
in Appendix- III A dated 17.12.2018 was
put on record before the respondentCorporation by the petitioner with a delay
of merely nine days. It is an admitted
position that since the passing of order
dated 30.12.2019, the selection rests at the
same stage and has not proceeded any
further so far. As noted above, in the
brochure for selection of dealership, no
specific time limit is prescribed for
submitted documents in response to the
letter of allotment. We, therefore, are of the
considered opinion that in the absence of
any statutory prohibition in accepting the
documents beyond time frame prescribed in
the letter of allotment and having regard to
the fact that the petitioner submitted the
affidavit of his mother in Appendix- III A
of a date prior to the submission of
application form soon after he came to
know that recent affidavit is not acceptable
as well as the fact that by that time, the
selection had not progressed any further,
respondent No. 2 ought to have considered
the said affidavit.

16. In view of above, we are of the
opinion that the decision taken by the
respondent No. 2 declining to consider the
affidavit submitted by the petitioner along
with representation dated 24.7.2019 and
communication dated 13.12.2019 are not
sustainable and are hereby quashed. Since
the respondent has yet not examined
whether the said affidavit is genuine or not
but has refused to consider the same solely
on the ground that it was filed beyond time
prescribed
for
submitting
documents,
therefore,
we
grant
liberty
to
the
respondent-Corporation to examine the said
aspect and if it is found that affidavit is a
genuine one, the respondent-Corporation
shall proceed to consider the same as due
compliance of the requirement relating to
submission of affidavit in Appendix- III A
and
will
proceed
accordingly.
The
1740 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
aforesaid exercise shall be completed by
the respondent-Corporation within three
weeks from today.

17. The writ petition stands disposed
of with the above directions.
----------
(2022) 9 ILRA 1740
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 25.07.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SARAL SRIVASTAVA, J.

Writ C No. 41940 of 2013

Lalti Devi & Anr. ...Petitioners
Versus
Bindu Bihari Verma & Ors. ....Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri Arvind Srivastava, Sri Ram Milan Mishra,
Sri Vinay Mishra

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Umesh Vats

A.
Civil
Law
-
Code
of
Civil
Procedrue,1908-Section 115, Order 26,
Rule 9-Civil suit-Appointment of Court
Commissioner-

The
case
of
the
respondents/plaintiffs
is
that
suit
property is a joint family property in
which a business of jewellery is being runAccording
to
the
plaint
allegation,
respondent no.2 was also a sleeping
partner in the family business to the
extent of 30% share- At the time of filing
of the suit, respondents/plaintiffs also
filed an application under Order 26 Rule 9
of C.P.C. for the appointment of the court
commissioner to make an inventory of the
accounts and gold, silver, and jewellery
lying in the stock of the firm-The trial
court instead of going into the merits of
the case proceeded to reject the same on
the ground that more than three and half
years have passed since the institution of
suit and respondents/plaintiffs have not
pressed the application therefore, there is
no
good
ground
to
appoint
court
commissioner at this stage- Hence, the
revision court has not committed any
error
in
holding
that
revision
is
maintainable against the order passed by
the trial court and has rightly remanded
the matter to the trial court to decide the
application under Order 26 Rule 9 of C.P.C.
afresh.(Para 1 to 30)

B. A Commissioner for local investigation
is deputed under Order 26 Rule 9 CPC
when
the
Court
deems
a
local
investigation to be requisite or proper for
the purpose of elucidating any matter in
dispute or for ascertaining any other
matter mentioned in the said rule. The
object of local investigation under the
above provision is to obtain evidence
which from its peculiar nature can best be
had from the spot itself. Such evidence
enables
the
Court
to
properly
and
correctly
understand
and
assess
the
evidence on record already recorded. It
clarifies or explains any point which is left
doubtful on the evidence on record- Thus,
keeping in view the law on the point in
issue, as stated herein above, and the rival
averments made by the parties as well as
the evidence on record, a Commissioner's
report
of
local
investigation
was
absolutely necessary in this case.(Para 17)
The writ petition is dismissed. (E-6)

List of Cases cited:

1. Rama Shanker Tiwari Vs Mahadeo & ors..
(1968) A.W.R. 103 (F.B.)

2. Haryana Waqf Board Vs Shanti Sarup & ors.
(2008) 8 SCC 761

3. Shreepat Vs Rajendra Prasad & ors.. (2000) 2
JCLR 462 SC

4.
Ponnusamy
Vs
Salem
Vaiyappamalai
Jangamar Sangam (1986) AIR Mad 33

5. New Meena Sahkari Awas Samiti Ltd. LKO. Vs
A.D.J., CT. No. 2 LKO (2016) 6 ADJ 595