High Court
Case Details
WA 264/2013 BEFORE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. A.K. GOEL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. GOSWAMI (A.K.Goel, C.J.) This appeal has been preferred against order of learned Single Judge qua shing the letter of intent issued in favour of the private respondent by cancell ing the candidature of the respondent-writ petitioner.
Legal Reasoning
Vide notice dated 28.3.2008, applications were invited for allotment of Kishan Sewa Kendra (KSK) for distribution of Diesel Lubricants and agricultural material to the farmers in rural areas. The respondent-writ petitioner was one o f the candidates. As per requirement, he offered land measuring 3 Katha 4 Lechas in Kalabari area. The land was described to be covered by Dag No.671 of Patta N o.23 of Village Kalita Gaon under Gahpur Mouza in the district of Sonitpur. The writ petitioner was invited for interview and was empanelled as the first candid ate for allotment. Later, the appellant Corporation informed the writ petitioner that the land offered by him was actually covered by Dag No.676 of Patta No.93 and not Dag No.671 of Patta No.23 on account of which his candidature was liable to be cancelled. The appellant responded with the explanation that there was mi stake in description and, on approach being made, the Circle Officer had made th e correction on 25.10.2010. As to the objection against non-submission of origin al balance sheet, the writ petitioner submitted that the original balance sheet was sought to be submitted, but the same was not accepted. Since the appellant c ancelled the candidature of the writ petitioner, he moved this Court against the said order.
Decision
Learned Single Judge held that since it was a case of sheer mistake, att ributable to the revenue official, the writ petitioner could not be prejudiced. It was also held that there was no denial to the plea of the writ petitioner tha t original documents were sought to be produced, but were not accepted. Accordin gly, the writ petition was allowed. The findings recorded by the learned Single Judge are as follows : It is an admitted fact that on the basis of the candidature offe (cid:28)14. red by the petitioner and in comparison with the candidatures offered by other c andidates, he was found to be the first candidate. The land that was offered by him was found to be a suitable plot of land. On verification of the records prod uced by the learned counsel for the respondent corporation, it is found that alo ng with the application the petitioner while submitting the land documents, also submitted the certificate issued by the Circle Officer and also the land Patta Pass Book. In the said documents, the land in question was identified to be in D ag No.671, although in fact the Dag Number was 676. The mistake occurred not bec ause of the petitioner, but because of the wrong recording by the revenue offici als. It so happened that the petitioner purchased the plot of land from the part icular land lord and in the documents the land was recorded to be under Dag No.6 71, although as per the revenue records, it should have been 676. The petitioner had no hand in describing the land in that manner. When the matter was brought to his notice by the respondent corporation, he made enquiries in the office of the revenue authority and realizing the mistake, the said authority made the nec essary correction, correcting the Dag Number as 676 of patta No.93 in place of 6 71 of patta No.23. The fact of the matter is that the land remains the same. 15. The particular land having been offered by the petitioner for establishi ng the dealership and the same having been found suitable by the respondent corp oration, in my considered opinion the candidature of the petitioner should not h ave been rejected at a later stage alleging that the petitioner was responsible for wrong description of the land. The circumstances leading to correction of th e Dag and patta numbers have been explained in the writ petition. The petitioner having been offered with land documents describing the Dag Number as 671 of pat ta No.23, he had no hand to describe the land otherwise. However, upon field ver ification by the officials of the respondent corporation and on carrying out con sultation with the revenue officials, when the mistake was detected and it was f ound that the Dag Number of the land in fact is 676 of patta No.93, same was not only corrected, but the petitioner also informed the same to the respondent cor poration. This being the position, I am of the considered opinion that the candi dature of the petitioner should not have been cancelled by the respondent corpor ation on this technical ground. 16. As regards the purported non production of the originals of the balance sheet of the particular pages, it is the definite case of the petitioner that al though he wanted to produce the same, but the officials of the respondent corpor ation refused to accept the same. This stand of the petitioner has not been deni ed by the respondent corporation. That apart, this was never the ground for reje ction of the candidature of the petitioner. As noticed above, the petitioner was in fact selected as the first nominee and at that point of time, it was never t he plea of the respondent corporation that there was failure on the part of the petitioner to produce the originals of the particular pages of the balance sheet . If the said original documents are required, the respondent corporation can ea sily obtain the same from the petitioner and the same cannot be made the ground of rejection of the candidature of the petitioner which was also not there when the petitioner was found to be the most suitable candidate. & & & & As regards the plea of the respondent corporation that it has acted in t 18. he matter as per the terms and conditions of the notice, which also indicated ab out probable rejection of candidature upon furnishing of wrong information, suff ice is to say that clause 10(h) of the notice will have to be understood in the context of deliberately furnishing of false information and not otherwise. Same is not the case in hand. This is precisely the reason as to why Mr. Choudhury, l earned counsel appearing for the respondent corporation fairly submits that ther e was no deliberate suppression of any fact on the part of the petitioner. Howev er, he submits that the selection committee was to go by the terms and condition s of the notice. If there was no deliberate withholding of any fact by the petit ioner, merely because there was mistake on the part of the revenue authority in describing the particular land, the petitioner cannot be penalized. (cid:29) We have heard learned counsel for the appellant. Learned counsel for the appellant is unable to show that there was any w ilful misrepresentation or suppression on the part of the writ petitioner. If it is a case of sheer mistake on the part of the revenue official, the writ petiti oner could not have been prejudiced. Learned counsel for the appellant fairly st ates that there was no denial to the stand of the writ petitioner that he had of fered to produce the original balance sheet and the Corporation refused to accep t the same. In these circumstances, no ground is made out to interfere with the view taken by the learned Single Judge. The appeal is dismissed.