Original in-game verdict

Background 1. Revati Kulkarni challenges Pune Municipal Corporation’s rejection of her permit application. She asks for a limited remedy: an opportunity to submit a readable identity document and for the Corporation to reconsider the application. She does not ask the court to approve the permit automatically. The Corporation maintains that the application was rejected because the identity document could not be read and says applicants are responsible for checking their uploads. 2. The court decides the matter on the shared hearing record and the supplied rules. The parties have both made final submissions. No further obtainable evidence about notice or correction has been identified, and adjournment is not available. The findings below are final for this decision. Issues for determination 3. The issues are whether Revati applied on time; whether the Corporation acted unfairly by rejecting the application without a fair chance to correct the identity-file problem; and whether limited reconsideration is justified. Revati bears the burden of proving the facts supporting her request for relief under Rule 1, “The Claim Needs Proof.” Submissions of the parties 4. Revati relies on the submission receipt and upload log. She says they show that she applied before the deadline and that the portal received an identity file, although the preview failed. She accepts that the record does not establish whether the file was readable or what notice she received. She argues that the Corporation’s stated reason for rejection does not answer whether she should have been allowed to correct the problem. Her requested remedy remains limited to submitting a readable document and having the application reconsidered. 5. The Corporation says the identity document was not readable and that applicants must check their uploads. It also argues that Revati could have contacted the Corporation after receiving the rejection notice. It refers to the Corporation’s workload and concerns about spam or fraud. The Corporation does not identify a record showing that Revati was offered a correction opportunity before rejection. Its final submission says it does not oppose Revati’s application, but also maintains its position that the rejection was justified. In context, that statement does not amount to agreement to the requested court-ordered reconsideration. Evidence and findings 6. The submission receipt, identified as exhibit-3-e1 and repeated as exhibit-9-e1, shows that Revati submitted an application before the deadline. The receipt does not list the attachment contents. The timestamped upload log, exhibit-6-e3 and exhibit-9-e3, records an identity-file upload before the deadline and a failed preview when a reviewer opened it. These records support timely filing and an attempted upload. They do not establish that the original file was readable, that it could not be opened by other means, or what Revati was told afterward. 7. The rejection notice, exhibit-6-e2 and exhibit-9-e2, states that the identity document was missing. It is a contemporaneous official explanation of the rejection, but it does not describe the upload review or any notice about correcting the file. The notice and upload log are not necessarily inconsistent: the portal may have recorded an attempted upload while the reviewer could not use the document. The record does not resolve that possibility. 8. Revati’s submissions, particularly statements 5 and 7, acknowledge that she has no separate message, firsthand account, or other evidence showing what notice she received. Statement 9 repeats that limitation. These are submissions, not independent proof of the Corporation’s communications. The Corporation’s statements 6 and 8 assert that Revati received a rejection message and did not contact the authorities, but the presented notice proves only that a rejection notice existed; it does not establish when it was received, whether it explained a correction route, or whether a pre-rejection opportunity was offered. The saved client statement at exhibit-6-client-statement:11 confirms the remedy Revati seeks, but is an attributed client account, not an independently verified document or admitted testimony. Reasons 9. The timely-application issue is established. The receipt and upload log are specific records with timestamps and support submission before the deadline. Their limits concern the attachment, not the filing date. This finding does not establish that Revati supplied a usable identity document. 10. The fairness issue is not proven. Rule 7, “Procedure Protects Fairness,” requires consideration of whether the process was fair before the agency relied on its decision. Rule 45, “Agency Decisions Need Record Support,” asks whether the agency’s findings have support in the record, and Rule 47, “Discretion Has Limits,” cautions against arbitrary decisions. These rules make the missing information about correction relevant. But Rule 1 places the burden on the party seeking relief. The record shows an attempted upload and failed preview, and it shows the Corporation’s stated reason for rejection. It does not show whether Revati was warned or offered a chance to correct the file. Nor does it prove that no such opportunity was given. Revati expressly acknowledges that no further evidence on notice is available. The Corporation’s failure to identify a correction notice does not, by itself, prove that none was given or shift Revati’s burden. The uncertainty therefore must be resolved against the party who bears that burden. 11. The Corporation’s workload and fraud-prevention assertions do not independently establish that the rejection process was fair or that the file was unreadable. They are unsupported explanations, not additional records. Still, the weakness of those assertions cannot substitute for proof of Revati’s claim. The court does not find that the Corporation acted fairly in every respect; it finds only that unfair treatment has not been established on this record. 12. The requested remedy is narrow and proportionate in form. Rule 6, “The Remedy Should Match the Harm,” supports considering a limited remedy rather than automatic approval. But proportionality does not remove the need to prove a basis for relief. Because the fairness issue is not proven, the record does not justify ordering reconsideration or a new opportunity to submit a document. The court makes no finding on whether Revati qualifies for the permit, and it does not decide whether the Corporation would accept a later submission outside this proceeding. Final order 13. Revati’s request for court-ordered permission to submit a readable identity document and for reconsideration of her application is denied. No permit approval is ordered. The finding that Revati applied on time is established, but it does not establish that the identity document was readable or that the application should have been approved. The Corporation owes no payment to Revati under this judgment; no monetary relief was claimed or supported. The Corporation prevails because Revati did not prove the unfair treatment necessary for the requested relief.