http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 5  

CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 722  of  2001 Special Leave Petition (civil)  4217     of  2000 Appeal (civil)  723      of  2001 Special Leave Petition (civil)  4767     of  2000 Appeal (civil)  724      of  2001 Special Leave Petition (civil)  5283     of  2000

PETITIONER: UPDESH KUMAR, ETC.  ETC.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: PRITHVI SINGH & ORS., ETC.  ETC.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       19/01/2001

BENCH: S.R.Babu, K.G.Balakrishna

JUDGMENT:

L.....I.........T.......T.......T.......T.......T.......T..J

     K.G.  BALAKRISHNAN, J.

     Leave granted.

     These three appeals, filed by Updesh Kumar, Indian Oil Corporation  Limited  and Prithvi Singh respectively,  arise out  of a common judgment passed in R.S.A.  No.  632 of 1999 and  R.S.A.  No.  3268 of 1999 by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana  at  Chandigarh.  The dispute in all  these  appeals relates  to  the allotment of a retail outlet dealership  by the Indian Oil Corporation Limited.

     The facts of the case, in brief, are thus.  Indian Oil Corporation Limited, on 21.1.1987, invited applications from physically  handicapped persons/Govt.  employees, who became disabled  while  on duty (excluding Defence personnel),  for allotment  of  a  retail   outlet  dealership  in  Faridabad district.  One of the conditions of eligibility was that the applicant  should not be less than 21 years and more than 50 years  of  age  as  on the date  of  application.   The  Oil Selection  Board  conducted  interviews   of  the   eligible candidates.   Prithvi  Singh (appellant in the civil  appeal arising  out of SLP(C) No.  5283 /2000), was found  eligible for  allotment  of the retail outlet.  The  second  eligible candidate  was  one  Mamta  Rani  while  Updesh  Kumar,  the appellant in the civil appeal arising out of S.L.P.  (Civil) No.   4217  of 2000, was the third eligible candidate.   The letter of intent was issued by the Indian Oil Corporation in favour  of Prithvi Singh on 23.11.1987.  Mamta Rani filed  a representation  alleging  that  as  Prithvi  Singh  had  not completed 21 years of age as on the date of his application, the  letter of intent issued in his favour was liable to  be cancelled.   Pursuant to this, the letter of intent  granted

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 5  

in  favour  of  Prithvi  Singh was  cancelled  on  7.3.1988. Prithvi  Singh,  in turn, filed a writ petition  before  the High  Court  of  Delhi challenging the cancellation  of  the letter  of intent issued in his favour.  The High Court  set aside  the cancellation order and directed the Oil Selection Board to re-consider the matter afresh after hearing Prithvi Singh  and  the  complainant, Mamta Rani.   Accordingly,  in pursuance of the directions of the Delhi High Court, the Oil Selection  Board considered the matter afresh and held  that Prithvi  Singh was more than 21 years old as on the date  of his  application.   The letter of intent issued earlier  was thus  revived and Prithvi Singh then took appropriate  steps to start the retail outlet.

     However,  Mamta Rani again challenged the order passed by  the  Oil Selection Board before the Delhi High  Court  . She  also filed a civil suit before the District &  Sessions Judge  at  Chandigarh  challenging the findings of  the  Oil Selection  Board and prayed for injunction against allotment of the retail outlet in question to Prithvi Singh.  The writ petition filed by her was disposed of by the High Court with the  observation  that  she could pursue the matter  in  the civil  suit  filed  by  her.  In  the  meantime,  the  third eligible  candidate,  Updesh Kumar also filed a  civil  suit before the Addl.  Sr.  Sub Judge, Palwal.  The suit filed by Mamta  Rani was transferred to the Palwal court and both the suits  were  tried  together.  During the  pendency  of  the suits,  Mamta  Rani  passed away and the suit filed  by  her abated.   The  suit  filed  by Updesh Kumar  was  tried  and dismissed  by the Addl.  Sr.  Sub Judge, Palwal.   Aggrieved thereby,  Updesh  Kumar  filed an appeal  before  the  Addl. District  Judge,  Faridabad.  The appellate court held  that the  correction  of the date of birth of Prithvi Singh  from 3.10.1969  to 26.12.1965 in his Matriculation Certficate was illegal, null and void and was not binding on the appellant, Updesh  Kumar  and consequently the Indian  Oil  Corporation Ltd.   was  restrained  from allotting the  disputed  retail outlet  to  Prithvi Singh.  This judgment was challenged  by Prithvi Singh before the High Court of Punjab & Haryana, but the  High  Court declined to interfere with the judgment  of the  Addl.   District  Judge,  Faridabad.   It  was  further directed  by  the  High Court that the Oil  Selection  Board should  conduct  a  fresh selection.  This  finding  of  the learned Single Judge is challenged before us.

     We  heard the learned counsel for the parties and also Mr.   Harish  N.  Salve, learned Solicitor General  for  the Indian Oil Corporation.

     Prithvi  Singh  had  submitted   an  application   for allotment  of a retail outlet claiming that he had completed 21 years of age as on the date of application.  According to Prithvi  Singh,  his  date of birth is  26.12.1965  and  not 3.10.1969  as  originally  entered   in  his   Matriculation certificate.

     It  may  be noted that Prithvi Singh, as early  as  in 1986,  had obtained Ex.  PW-2/B (Date of Birth  Certificate) from  the Chief Medical Officer, Faridabad, wherein his date of  birth  was  recorded  as   26.12.1965.   Based  on  this certificate,   he  later  submitted   an   application   for correcting  his  age  in the Matriculation  certificate  and accordingly  his  date  of  birth   was  corrected  in   the Matriculation certificate from 3.10.1969 to 26.12.1965.  All these certificates were produced by Prithvi Singh before the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 5  

Oil Selection Board and after hearing both Prithvi Singh and Mamta  Rani, the Oil Selection Board held that Prithvi Singh had  attained  21  years  of  age as  on  the  date  of  his application for allotment of the retail outlet.

     In  the suit filed by Updesh Kumar, he had  challenged the  letter of intent granted in favour of Prithvi Singh and he  had  also contended that the correction in the  date  of birth of Prithvi Singh by the Haryana School Education Board was  illegal  as  it  was done without any  notice  to  him. Before  the  trial  court, Prithvi  Singh  produced  several documents  to  prove  that  his correct date  of  birth  was 26.12.1965.   The main documents on which he relied were Ex. PW-2/B   (Date   of   Birth   Certificate);    Matriculation Examination certificate;  Exh.  P-X (copy of the application submitted for obtaining copy of the Birth Certificate);  and Ex.   P-Y  (Copy  of the Challan to show that  he  had  paid Rs.4/-  for  obtaining copy of the certificate).  The  trial court  elaborately considered the question and held that Ex. PW-2/B  (Birth Certificate) was a genuine document issued by the  competent authority and that the correction of date  of birth  in  the  Matriculation  Examination  certificate  was properly  done  and that the date of birth of Prithvi  Singh must,  in  all probability, be 26.12.1965 and held that  the decision  of the Oil Selection Board in allotting the retail outlet to Prithvi Singh was just and proper.

     Learned  counsel appearing on behalf of Updesh  Kumar, strenuously contended before us that Ex.  PW-2/B certificate was  not issued by the Chief Medical Officer and that it was a  forged document and that the appellate court had accepted this  contention  and  the same was upheld  by  the  learned Single Judge.

     It  is important to note that Ex.  PW-2/B  certificate was   issued   at  an  undisputed   point  of   time.    The advertisement  inviting  applications for retail outlet  was itself  issued on 21.1.1987.  Copy of the birth  certificate was  obtained  by Prithvi Singh in 1986.  Exh.  P-X  is  the copy  of the application submitted by Prithvi Singh and  Ex. P-Y  is the challan form by which he had paid Rs.4/- as  fee for  obtaining a copy of the certificate.  Prithvi Singh had also given a very valid and reasonable explanation as to why he had obtained such a certificate in 1986.  He deposed that in  1986,  both he and his brother had to appear  in  public examination.   From  their  dates of birth  entered  in  the school  record, it was, however, noticed that there was only three  months’ difference between those two dates of  birth. Prithvi  Singh  was,  therefore,  asked to  obtain  a  birth certificate from the Chief Medical Officer in order to avoid any  risk of his application for the said examination  being rejected.   Prithvi  Singh thus applied for the  certificate and  obtained  the  same  on   17.2.1986  and  as  per  that certificate  his date of birth was 26.12.1965.   Thereafter, he  submitted  an application for correction of his date  of birth  in the Matriculation Certificate.  The Haryana School Education Board then corrected his date of birth accordingly to 26.12.1965.

     Serious  challenge  was  made  to  Ex.   PW-2/B  birth certificate,  mainly  for  the reason that  the  Dy.   Chief Medical  Officer,  Smt.   M.K.    Bhatia,  [PW-3],  who  had allegedly  issued the certificate, had denied her  signature thereon.   However,  it  is pertinent to note that  she  had admitted  her  signature in Ex.  PW-2/D, PW-2/E  and  PW-2/F

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 5  

certificates, which are the birth certificates issued to the siblings  of  Prithvi Singh.  All these documents were  sent for the report of a handwriting expert and he opined that in all  probability, the signature found on Ex.  PW-2/B must be that  of  PW-3, Smt.  M.K.  Bhatia.  The expert,  Mr.   K.K. Khandelwal  was  examined as a witness and the Trial  Judge, after considering the evidence and his report, held that Ex. PW-2/B  bore  the  signature  of Smt.   M.K.   Bhatia.   The appellate  court did not consider all these aspects and  was simply carried away by the fact that Smt.  Bhatia had denied the signature and therefore, the birth certificate must have been forged and fabricated by Prithvi Singh.  The finding of the lower appellate court, which was affirmed by the learned Single Judge is without any basis.

     Prithvi  Singh  obtained  the   birth  certificate  in February,  1986  and  his  date  of  birth  shown  in   that certificate is 26.12.1965.  This very much tallied vis-a-vis the dates of birth of his siblings.  Prithvi Singh submitted an  application  for correction of his date of birth in  the Matriculation  Certificate and the Haryana School  Education Board  corrected his date of birth in the school certificate issued  to  him.   The correction of date of  birth  in  the certificate  is  an official act and it must be presumed  to have  been done in accordance with law.  Updesh Kumar  could not  produce  any  evidence  to  show  that  there  was  any irregularity  in the process of correcting the date of birth of  Prithvi  Singh  in the school  record.   Strangely,  the appellate court has observed that Updesh Kumar was not given notice  or heard when the correction in the date of birth of Prithvi Singh was done in the school records and hence there is  violation of the principles of natural justice.  It  was not  necessary  for the authorities to issue any  notice  to Updesh  kumar  in  the matter of correction of the  date  of birth  of  Prithvi  Singh.  There was no  violation  of  the principles  of natural justice on that score.  The denial of signature  by PW-3, Smt.  Bhatia on Ex.  PW-2/B  certificate is  also of not much consequence.  She must have deposed  so because the original records kept in the office of the Chief Medical  Officer  were found tampered with.  The  pages  had been  found torn and replaced.  It was noticed by the  trial Judge  that the entries in the register for the year 1965-66 were  in Urdu script while those on the relevant pages  were in  Hindi.   The corresponding leaf of the sheet  containing entries  74  to  85 in the register was  found  removed  and another  paper  was  pasted.  As the original  register  was found  tampered with, PW-3 Smt.  Bhatia had no other go  but to  deny  her signature on Ex.  PW- 2/B  certificate  issued from  her office.  This aspect was not carefully taken  note of  by the appellate court.  It may also be noticed that  in the  electoral  roll  published  on 1.1.1986,  the  name  of Prithvi  Singh had been entered as he had attained more than 21  years  of age as on 1.1.1986.  The Oil  Selection  Board considered all these aspects and held that the date of birth of  Prithvi Singh must be 26.12.1965 and that as on the date of  application  for allotment of the retail outlet  he  had attained the age of more than 21 years.

     There  is overwhelming evidence to prove that  Prithvi Singh had attained the age of 21 years as on the date of his application  for  allotment  of the retail  outlet  and  the appellate  court was not justified in reversing the decision of  the trial court.  The learned Single Judge also did  not advert  to these points while confirming the decision of the appellate  court.  In the result, we set aside the  judgment

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 5  

of  the appellate court and that of the learned Single Judge and  hold  that the suit filed by Updesh Kumar  shall  stand dismissed.  Consequently, the appeals filed by Prithvi Singh and  the  Indian  Oil Cororation Limited are  allowed.   The appeal  filed  by Updesh Kumar shall stand dismissed and  he being  a physically handicapped person, we make no order  as to  costs.   All  the parties shall  bear  their  respective costs.