This writ petition challenging rejection of a Petitioner's application for a retail outlet dealership in Group 1 was dismissed. The Court held the rejection was lawful as the offered land was in the wrong district (Meerut instead of Hapur). The Petitioner can now be considered along with Group 3 applicants.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 21
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 24382 of 2021
Petitioner :- Mukesh Kumar Respondent :- Union Of India And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rajesh Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I.,Gaurav Kumar Chand
Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Gupta,J. Hon'ble Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.
Heard Sri Rajesh Kumar, counsel for the petitioner, Sri Gaurav Kumar Chand for respondent no.1 and Sri Anand Tiwari for respondents no.2 and 4.
The instant writ petition has been filed challenging a communication dated 12.8.2021, whereby the petitioner has been informed by the respondent Corporation (Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd.) regarding rejection of his candidature in Group 1 and also the fact that his application would now be considered with Group 3 applicants as per guidelines.
The petitioner had applied for award of retail outlet dealership of Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. at the location between Tiyala to Atrara on Hapur Kithore road, District Hapur under open category pursuant to an advertisement issued on 25.11.2018. By the impugned communication, he has been informed that during scrutiny it was found that the land documents submitted by him were not valid for considering the offered land under Group 1 for the following reasons:-
"1. Affidavit as per Appendix XA is incomplete.
2. Land offered is in Meerut District, whereas Advertised location is in Hapur District.
3. Khasra Khatauni not submitted.
4. Deponent name is incorrect in Affidavit as per the Appendix 3A.
5. Appendix 3B submitted date is 15.06.2021 i.e. after the date of submission of application."
It is noteworthy that under the guidelines for award of R.O. dealership, the applicants have been categorised in three groups. Group 1 consists of persons who offer their own land alongwith application for setting up of the retail outlet. Group 2 are those applicants who do not offer land of their own but give concrete
proposal in respect of some other land located at the advertised place. Group 3 consists of applicants who upon being selected, are given option to offer land. It seems that the petitioner alongwith his application offered certain land, which upon scrutiny was not found to be situated at the advertised location, apart from certain other technical defects in the affidavits and documents.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has not disputed that the advertised location is between Tiyala to Atrara on Hapur Kithore road, District Hapur. Learned counsel for the petitioner has invited our attention towards a recital made in the sale deed to the effect that the subject land, which was offered for setting up retail outlet, was located beyond the municipal limits. However, it has not been disputed before us that the subject land is situated in District Meerut. This is also evident from copy of khatauni filed at page 43 of the writ petition. Consequently, we find no illegality in the stand taken by the respondent Corporation in respect of the application submitted by the petitioner for the advertised location.
The petition lacks merit and is dismissed.
However, the dismissal of the writ petition will in no manner prejudice the consideration of the candidature of the petitioner alongwith Group 3 applicants as per guidelines.
(Shekhar Kumar Yadav, J.) (Manoj Kumar Gupta, J.)
Order Date :- 25.1.2022 SL
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner's candidature for Group 1 dealership was correctly rejected due to offer of land in District Meerut instead of advertised District Hapur.
Whether the dismissal of the writ petition prejudices the petitioner's consideration for Group 3.
Mukesh Kumar
Union Of India
Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd.
Respondents No. 2 and 4
Manoj Kumar Gupta
Shekhar Kumar Yadav
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
