Back
2015 Supreme(Del) 2004
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
G. ROHINI, JAYANT NATH, JJ.
Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. - Appellant
Versus
Kapil Bagri - Respondent
LPA 333/2014 & CM No.7281/2014
Decided on : 10.08.2015
Ms. Mala Narayan, Ms. Vridhika Mayar, Advocates
Mr. J.P. Sengh, Mr. Jagdev Singh and Ms. Sana Ansari, Advocates
Minor curable defects cannot defeat substantive rights, and frivolous technical pleas should not knock out an applicant.
Headnote:
Affidavit - Retail Outlet Allotment - Notary Act, 1952, Section 8(2); Sunita Gupta vs. Union of India & Ors., 2014(5) Scale 360; T.Phunzathang vs. Hangkhanlian and Ors. (2001) 8 SCC 358 - The court discussed the curability of a defective affidavit and emphasized that minor curable defects cannot be a ground to defeat the substantive rights of an applicant. The court referred to previous judgments to support its decision and highlighted the importance of not allowing frivolous technical pleas to knock out an applicant.
Fact of the Case:
The respondent, an eligible scheduled caste candidate, applied for a retail outlet dealership. The appellant cancelled the respondent's candidature citing a defective affidavit. The respondent filed a writ petition seeking relief.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the absence of the notary's signature on one of the affidavits was a procedural lapse and a curable defect, not fatal to the validity of the affidavit. The court dismissed the appeal and emphasized that minor curable defects cannot defeat substantive rights.
Issues: Validity of the affidavit, rejection of the respondent's application, curability of procedural defects
Ratio Decidendi: Minor curable defects cannot be a ground to defeat substantive rights. Frivolous technical pleas should not knock out an applicant.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the application for stay was also dismissed.
Jayant Nath, J.
1. The present appeal is filed seeking to impugn the order dated 11.03.2014. The present writ petition was filed by the respondent which after amendment sought the following reliefs:-
“a) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other writ of like nature, quashing the impugned letter dated 15.02.2012 of the respondent as the same is bad in law, in the interest of justice.
b) issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondent to issue allotment letter to the petitioner in respect of the retail outlet dealership of Ms. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. at Tikri Kalan, Rohtak Road, Delhi in the interest of justice.
c) issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondent to treat the unsigned affidavit as a valid document in view of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India or alternatively allow the petitioner to cure the said alleged defect by submitting a fresh affidavit, in the interest of justice.”
2. The brief facts are that the appellant issued an advertisement on 15.10.2010 in leading newspapers inviting applications for allotment of various retail outlets in Delhi and Haryana.
3. The respondent, being an eligible scheduled caste candidate, applied for allotment of a retail outlet dealership at Tikri Kalan, Rohtak Road, Delhi. Along with the application, the respondent as per the terms specified in the advertisement filed five affidavits of five different individuals for “tied up business”. The affidavits were regarding generation of business from the retail outlet. The affidavit was sworn by the respective deponents and also attested by the notary public. The notary public put a seal and date on the said five affidavits but inadvertently, by omission he did not put his signatures on one of such affidavit.
4. The respondent received an interview call on 20.05.2011 for an interview on 17.06.2011. The respondent was awarded the highest marks pursuant to the selection process where 92 candidates were interviewed. Respondent was placed first on the merit list. The respondent states that the certificates and other documents were verified by the authorized field investigating officer on 27.06.2011 and were found to be in order. It is averred that the appellant assured the respondent that an allotment letter would be issued to the respondent within one month of declaration of the result. It appears that certain complaints were received by the appellant which as per the respondent were received after the prescribed period. The complaints pertain to the absence of the signature of the notary in one of the affidavits filed by the respondent. The respondent made representations on 01.09.2011 and 28.09.2011 to the appellant. Subsequently, further representations were also made.
5. One of the applicants who had also filed a complaint Mr. Shoydan Singh filed W.P.(C) 8042/2011 praying for a declaration that the merit panel declared by the appellant dated 17.06.2011, where the respondent was declared first on the merit panel be declared arbitrary, illegal and unlawful. The respondent also filed the present writ petition. On 15.11.2011 the writ petition filed by Shoydan Singh i.e. W.P.(C) 8042/2011 was dismissed by this court. The said Shoydan Singh filed L.P.A. No. 90/2012. However, in the meantime, the appellant cancelled the candidature of the respondent vide communication dated 15.02.2012 stating that the affidavit which was not signed by the notary public was invalid. The appellant also ordered revaluation of all eligible candidates. Pursuant to the said impugned communication dated 15.02.2012, this court disposed of the LPA filed by Shoydan Singh on 17.02.2012 holding that it was not necessary to examine the issue in the present appeal. However, the Division Bench clarified that no view had been taken on the communication dated 15.02.2012 issued by the appellant to the respondent. After receipt of communication dated 1
