# Smt. Mansa Singh v. Union of India and others

- **Citation:** (2006) 3 ILRA 1221
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2006-11-02
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 57396 of 2006
- **Bench:** A.K. Yog, R.K. Rastogi
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/smt-mansa-singh-v-union-of-india-and-others-40681
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

Constitution of India, Art 226-Rejection
of Application-on pretext of medical
certificate-petitioner
had
already
mentioned in column 4 of application
about the medical certificate-despite of
receiving the application no objection
raised for considerable period-No reason
disclosed for withholding the certificate
by
the
petition-great
possibility
of
misplacement due to negligence of the
official-No bar regarding acceptance of
such document in subsequent stage-held
rejection not proper.

Held para 7 and 10

There was no question of not filing this
certificate-dated 22.7.2006 when it was
with the applicant on 28.7.2006 and she
had mentioned in the column no. 8 that
she was enclosing it. There is no
assertion
from
the
side
of
the
respondents that the photocopy of the
form filed by the petitioner (Annexure-2)
is not a true copy of the application
submitted to the respondents. Under this
circumstance there is no reason to
disbelieve the assertion made in column
no. 8 of the application that the medical
certificate was enclosed with the form,
and as such when the Corporation did
not raise any objection at the earliest on
receipt of the form on 28.7.2006 that it
did not contain the medical certificate,
the
subsequent
assertion
made
on
11.9.2006 that it was not received along
with the form cannot be believed and it
appears that medical certificate had
been misplaced or lost in the office of the
respondents.

We
are
therefore
permitting
the
petitioner to file a copy of the medical
certificate because when a document has
been lost in the office of the respondent,
there is no legal bar to file its copy at the
subsequent stage.

## Text

3All] Smt. Mansa Singh V. Union of India and others 1221
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 02.11.2006.

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE A.K. YOG, J.
THE HON'BLE R.K. RASTOGI,J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 57396 of 2006

Smt. Mansa Singh

...Petitioner
Versus
Union of India and others ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Vikas Budhwar
Sri Ramesh Chandra Tiwari

Counsel for the Respondent:
Sri Tarun Varma
Addl. Solicitor General of India.

Constitution of India, Art 226-Rejection
of Application-on pretext of medical
certificate-petitioner
had
already
mentioned in column 4 of application
about the medical certificate-despite of
receiving the application no objection
raised for considerable period-No reason
disclosed for withholding the certificate
by
the
petition-great
possibility
of
misplacement due to negligence of the
official-No bar regarding acceptance of
such document in subsequent stage-held
rejection not proper.

Held para 7 and 10

There was no question of not filing this
certificate-dated 22.7.2006 when it was
with the applicant on 28.7.2006 and she
had mentioned in the column no. 8 that
she was enclosing it. There is no
assertion
from
the
side
of
the
respondents that the photocopy of the
form filed by the petitioner (Annexure-2)
is not a true copy of the application
submitted to the respondents. Under this
circumstance there is no reason to
disbelieve the assertion made in column
no. 8 of the application that the medical
certificate was enclosed with the form,
and as such when the Corporation did
not raise any objection at the earliest on
receipt of the form on 28.7.2006 that it
did not contain the medical certificate,
the
subsequent
assertion
made
on
11.9.2006 that it was not received along
with the form cannot be believed and it
appears that medical certificate had
been misplaced or lost in the office of the
respondents.

We
are
therefore
permitting
the
petitioner to file a copy of the medical
certificate because when a document has
been lost in the office of the respondent,
there is no legal bar to file its copy at the
subsequent stage.

(Delivered by Hon'ble A.K. Yog, J.)

1. Heard leaned counsel for the
petitioner
and
the
learned
standing
counsel representing I.O.C.(Indian Oil
Corporation).

2. Petitioner has come up before this
Court being aggrieved by the impugned
order dated 11.9.2006/Annexure-9 to the
writ petition passed by the respondents
no. 2 and 3, whereby, Indian Oil
Corporation intimated the petitioner that
her application has been rejected on the
ground that medical certificate was not
enclosed therein.

3. According to the petitioner she
had
submitted
her
application-dated
28.7.2006 in order (including medical
certificate). Referring to the photocopy of
the application, it is pointed out that in
relevant column no. 8 requiring medical
certificate it was stated that the certificate
was enclosed and the petitioner had
replied in affirmative that she was
physically and mentally fit. Petitioner
submits that she had obtained medical
certificate dated 22nd July 2006 after her
1222 INDIAN LAW REPORT ALLAHABAD SERIES [2006
examination being conducted by Dr. Sri
A.K. Gadpayle, consultant in Medicine in
Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital, New
Delhi (photocopy of which is annexed as
Annexure 4 to the writ petition). There
appears to be no reason to disbelieve the
Doctor's certificate nor any circumstance
is pointed out as to why the petitioner
shall withhold the medical certificate.

4. The photocopy of the receipt
(page 40 of the writ petition) further
shows that the said application was
received
by,
an
Official
of
the
Corporation on 28th July, 2006 which was
the last date for receipt of the application
(refer to para 8 of the writ petition).

5. The normal person/authority
conducting
its
affairs
with
normal
prudence/diligence is expected to check
the application while it is being submitted
and point out the defect at the earliest.
This has not been done in the instant case
and the so called non receipt of the
medical certificate was pointed out on
11.9.2006. Hence we find no reason to
disbelieve the petitioner when possibility
of medical certificate being misplaced or
lost for so many reasons cannot be ruled
out.

6. It was submitted by the learned
counsel for the respondent the under the
rules and instructions of the Corporation
contained in the advertisement of which
the applicant should be aware, no
correction, amendment or new documents
can be permitted to be incorporated later
on so it was not permissible for the
petitioner to file the medical certificate at
this stage. He also referred to the ruling of
this Court in Civil Misc. Writ petition
No. 54400 of 2006-Smt. Omitri Rai Vs.
General Manager & another and
submitted that the court is taking a
different view in the present case, which
is not permissible under law.

7. We do not agree with the above
contention that we are taking a view
different from the ruling in the case of
Smt Omitri Rai (supra). It is to be seen
that when there is any discrepancy in the
form or when any document had not been
filed alongwith the form, the same cannot
be filed at a later stage nor the
discrepancy can be rectified and we have
taken this view in the case of Smt.
Omitri Rai (supra), but here the facts are
different. In the present case applicant had
asserted in column No. 8 of her
application dated 28-7-2006 that she had
enclosed the medical certificate. The
medical certificate is dated 23.7.2006.
There was no question of not filing this
certificate-dated 22.7.2006 when it was
with the applicant on 28.7.2006 and she
had mentioned in the column no. 8 that
she was enclosing it. There is no assertion
from the side of the respondents that the
photocopy of the form filed by the
petitioner (Annexure-2) is not a true copy
of the application submitted to the
respondents. Under this circumstance
there is no reason to disbelieve the
assertion made in column no. 8 of the
application that the medical certificate
was enclosed with the form, and as such
when the Corporation did not raise any
objection at the earliest on receipt of the
form on 28.7.2006 that it did not contain
the medical certificate, the subsequent
assertion made on 11.9.2006 that it was
not received along with the form cannot
be believed and it appears that medical
certificate had been misplaced or lost in
the office of the respondents.
3All] Smt. Seema Dubey V. Principal Judge Family Court, Lucknow and others 1223
8. Under these circumstances when
it is sufficiently proved that the medical
certificate had been filed with the form,
the permission to file its copy does not
amount to admission of a new document
and so the bar which was prescribed in the
advertisement regarding filing of new
documents does not apply to the present
case and to acceptance of the prayer of the
petitioner.

9. We may further add that in writ
petition No. 58636 of 2006 Ravi Pratap
Singh Vs. Union on India and others in
which also the form was rejected on the
ground of non-submission of the medical
certificate. We refused to allow the prayer
of the petitioner to file the medical
certificate because in this case column no.
8 of the application, had been left blank
by the petitioner and it had not been
asserted that medical certificate was being
filed along with the form. But in the
present case it is sufficiently proved that
medical certificate was being filed along
with the form. But in the present case it is
sufficiently proved that medical certificate
had been filed along with the application.

10. We are therefore permitting the
petitioner to file a copy of the medical
certificate because when a document has
been lost in the office of the respondent,
there is no legal bar to file its copy at the
subsequent stage.

11. The writ petition, is therefore,
allowed and the petitioner is permitted to
file the photocopy of the medical
certificate
dated
22.7.2006.
The
respondents shall consider that medical
certificate and shall not reject the
application form of the petitioner on the
ground of non-filing of the medical
certificate.
Writ Petition Stands allowed subject
to the above observations.

No order as to costs.
---------
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 15.09.2006.

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE O.P. SRIVASTAVA, J.

Civil Misc. Transfer Application No. 277 of
2006

Smt. Seema Dubey

...Applicant
Versus
Principal Judge Family Court, Lucknow
and others

 ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicant:
Sri R.P. Upadhyay

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:

Code of Civil Procedure-Section 23, 24Transfer
of
suit-from
Lucknow
to
Jaunpur-admittedly the case is pending
before Principal judge family Court at
Lucknow-held-in view of Nasruddin's
case-application
for
transfer
at
Allahabad not maintainable-returned for
presentation
before
the
concerned
Bench.

Held: Para 7, 8

Therefore, in my opinion, in view of
Section 23 of Code of Civil Procedure and
the above observations of the Hon'ble
Supreme court in Nasiruddin's case
(supra), the application for transfer of
case pending at Lucknow within the
territorial jurisdiction of Hon'ble Judges
at Lucknow, shall lie at Lucknow and not
at Allahabad. Therefore, office objection
in
regard
to
the
jurisdiction
is
sustainable.