UPDESH KUMAR versus PRITHVI SINGH AND ORS.

Citation: [2001] 1 S.C.R. 454 · Decided: 19-01-2001 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. RAJENDRA BABU · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
UPDESH KUMAR 
PRITHVI SINGH AND ORS. 
JANUARY 19, 2001 
B 
[S. RAJENDRA BABU AND K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, JJ.] 
Petrol Pumps: 
Allotment of ret:iil outlet dealership-By Indian Oil Corporation 
C (IOC)-Conditions of eligibility-Not less than 21 years and more than 50 
years on the date of application-Applicant was allotted retail outlet 
dealership-Representation flied alleging that the applicant had not 
completed 21 years of age as on the date of application and thus letter of 
intent issued in his favour was liable to be cancelled-Applicant produced 
D date of birth certificate signed by Deputy Chief Medical Officer (Dy. CMO)-
But she denied her signature-Suit challenging applicant's selection dismissed 
by trial court-But appellate court held that the correction of the date of 
birth of the applicant in his Matriculation Certificate was illegal, null and 
void-High Court declined to interfere and directed IOC to conduct a fresh 
selection-Validity of-Held: Applicant obtained date of birth certificate 
E prior to issue of advertisement for allotment of retail outlet-Handwriting 
expert testified to the genuineness of the signature of Dy. CMG-Appellate 
court wrongly held that the birth certificate is forged and fabricated because 
the Dy. CMO denied her signature-There is overwhelming evidence to prove 
that applicant attained the age of 21 years as on the date of application-
Hence, findings of appellate court and High Court are without any basis and 
F set aside. 
The respondent was allotted a retail outlet dealership by the Indian Oil 
Corporation (IOC). 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 
G date of application. A representation was filed by one of the eligible candidates 
alleging that the respondent had not completed 21 years of age as on the date 
of his application. Pursuant to this, letter of intent issued in favour of the 
• 
respondent was cancelled. However, the High Court set aside the cancellation 
order and directed IOC to reconsider the matter afresh after hearing the 
respondent and the complainant. Accordingly, IOC reconsidered the matter 
H 
454 
UPDESH KUMAR v. PRITHYI SINGH 
455 
afresh and held that the respondent was more than 21 years of age as on the A 
date of his application. The letter of intent issued earlier was revived. 
Being aggrieved the appellant filed a civil suit, which was dismissed. 
But the appellate court held that the correction of the date of birth of the 
respondent in his Matriculation Certificate was illegal, null and void and was 
not binding on the appellant. The High Court declined to interfere and B 
directed IOC to conduct a fresh selection. Hence this appeal. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: I. The respondent had obtained his date of birth certificate from C 
the Deputy Chief Medical Officer (Dy. CMO), wherein his correct date of 
birth was recorded. Based on this certificate, the respondent later submitted 
an application for correcting his age in the Matriculation Certificate and 
accordingly his date of birth was corrected. All these certificates were 
produced by the respondent before the IOC and after hearing both the 
respondent and the complainant, the IOC held that the respondent had attained D 
21 years of age as on the date of his application for allotment of the retail 
outlet. 1458-B-CI 
2. The date of birth certificate was issued at an undisputed point of 
time. The copy of the birth certificate was obtained by the respondent prior E 
to the issue of advertisement inviting applications for retail outlet. The 
respondent has also given a very valid and reasonable explanation as to why 
he had obtained such a certificate. 1458-H; 459-A-BI 
3.1. Serious challenge was made to the birth certificate mainly for the 
reason that the Dy. CMO had denied her signature thereon. However, she had F 
admitted her signatures in the birth certificates issued to the siblings of the 
respondent. All these documents were sent for the report of a handwriting 
expert and he opined that in all probability, the signature found on the birth 
certificate must be that of the Dy. CMO. This expert was examined as a 
witness and the Trial Judge, after considering the evidence and his report, G 
held that the birth certificate bore the signature of the Dy. CMO. The 
appellate court did not consider all these aspects and was simply carried 
away by the fact that the Dy. CMO had den

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.