Applicants must submit requisite dealership documents by the application deadline; subsequent rectification is impermissible.

The petitioner applied for an Indian Oil Corporation retail outlet dealership and sought consideration of the land offered by him under Group 1.

His candidature was subsequently treated under Group 3, and his application was rejected because the requisite document under Appendix III-B, including the advocate’s letter, was submitted on 10 June 2019 instead of by the prescribed date of 15 February 2019.

The application required applicants to possess all requisite documents as on the last date of submission, namely 25 December 2018, under the note to Clause 13.

The petitioner challenged the Corporation’s letter dated 21 August 2019, contending that his candidature had been changed from Group 1 to Group 3 without notice.

Both parties accepted that the matter was covered by the Division Bench decision in CWJC No. 2192 of 2021, decided on 30 November 2021.

1. Whether the petitioner could claim consideration under Group 1 despite not possessing and submitting the requisite Appendix III-B document by the prescribed date for submission of the application.

2. Whether the Corporation could refuse consideration of the petitioner’s offered land under Group 1 on the ground that the required document was submitted after the applicable cut-off date.

3. Whether the petitioner’s subsequent advocate’s letter could establish that he possessed the requisite document on the date of the application.

The Court applied the conditions of the dealership application, particularly the note under Clause 13 requiring applicants to possess all requisite documents as on the last date of submission of the application, 25 December 2018.

It also applied the principle recognised by the Division Bench in CWJC No. 2192 of 2021 that no rectification can be made after submission of the application and that documents required under Appendices III-A and III-B must be submitted along with the application itself.

Further, the petitioner was bound by his express declaration that any wrong information, misrepresentation, or suppression of facts would render him ineligible and authorise the Corporation to withdraw the Letter of Intent or terminate the dealership.

The Court found that the petitioner did not possess the requisite document on 25 December 2018, the prescribed last date for submission of the application, and therefore could not claim Group 1 consideration.

The later advocate’s letter could not retrospectively cure the deficiency or prove possession of the document as on the relevant date.

Applying the principle that required documents must accompany the original application and cannot subsequently be rectified, the Court rejected the petitioner’s contention.

The Court also relied on the petitioner’s declaration regarding the consequences of incorrect information or misrepresentation, observing that his claim to have possessed the document on the application date was incorrect.

Accordingly, the Corporation’s refusal to consider the land under Group 1 was held lawful.

It found no illegality in the Corporation’s decision refusing his offer of land under Group 1 and dismissed the writ petition as devoid of merit.

Any pending interlocutory applications were also disposed of.