Pune administrative court denies reconsideration after permit upload preview fails

An administrative court in Pune has denied Revati Kulkarni's request for an opportunity to submit a readable identity document and have Pune Municipal Corporation reconsider her rejected permit application.

The court found that Kulkarni applied on time and attempted to upload an identity file. But it said the evidence did not establish that the Corporation denied her a fair chance to correct the problem. The decision does not determine whether she qualifies for the permit.

The submission receipt showed that the application was filed before the deadline, but did not list its attachments. A separate portal log recorded an identity-file upload before the deadline and a failed preview when a reviewer opened it. Neither record established whether the original file was readable or could have been opened another way.

The rejection notice said the identity document was missing, but did not describe the upload review or any opportunity to correct the file. The court said the notice and log were not necessarily inconsistent: a file could have been uploaded while remaining unusable to the reviewer.

The decisive gap concerned notice. The evidence did not show whether Kulkarni was warned or offered a correction opportunity, but it also did not prove that no opportunity was given. Because she bore the burden of proving the facts supporting relief, the court resolved that uncertainty against her.

The court rejected the Corporation's workload and fraud-prevention assertions as unsupported explanations. It did not find that the process was fair in every respect; it found only that unfair treatment had not been established.

Kulkarni argued that the upload log distinguished her case from one in which no document had been submitted. She accepted that she should have checked the upload and that the evidence did not establish the file's readability or what notice she received. She sought reconsideration, not automatic permit approval.

The Corporation maintained that the reviewer could not read the identity document and that applicants were responsible for checking their uploads. It also argued that Kulkarni could have contacted the authority after the rejection and referred to its workload and concerns about fraud.

The Corporation did not identify a record showing that a correction opportunity was offered before rejection. Although its final submission said it did not oppose Kulkarni's application, the court did not treat that statement as agreement to court-ordered reconsideration.

The Corporation rejected the permit application as incomplete after the portal preview failed and the reviewer could not find a readable identity document. It had not reconsidered the application when the matter came before the court.

The court said a limited remedy could be proportionate, but that proportionality did not replace proof of a basis for relief. It left open whether the Corporation would accept a later submission outside the proceeding.