14. Further it appears that - on 02.03.2019, an e-mail (Annexure-II) was sent by the Head of Divisional Office, IOCL, to the petitioner, informing him that a Land Evaluation Committee (LEC) will be visiting the proposed site for inspection on 12.03.2019, and also requesting him to remain present there personally along with relevant documents. Option was also given that in case he could not remain present, he may authorize his authorized representative along with his or her ID proof and authorization. However, on that day the LEC did not turn up. The petitioner’s case is that later on, without any intimation, to the petitioner, the LEC had unilaterally visited the land of the petitioner and he came to know about the same from a third person. It is the further case of the petitioner that on 30.03.2019, he had received another e-mail (Annexure-III), wherein it was stated that on 12.03.2019, the LEC visited the site being offered by the petitioner and found the same to be not suitable and by citing this reason, his selection for RO dealership was cancelled. Thereafter, on 29.04.2019 he had received another communication, (Annexure-IV) wherein it is stated that rejection of his candidature was due to verification of the offered plot of land on 22.03.2019. The further case of the petitioner is that as per guidelines it is mandatory for all the parties to remain present physically during such verification. However, in total violation of this norm, the LEC had inspected his land and thereafter the IOCL had cancelled his selection.
