# Ram Autar v. Union of India & Ors

- **Citation:** (2020) 2 ILRA 440
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2019-10-31
- **Case number:** Writ C No. 36047 of 2016
- **Bench:** Bala Krishna Narayana, Prakash Padia
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ram-autar-v-union-of-india-ors-45304
- **Pages:** 9

## Headnote

A.S.G.I., Sri Ghan Shyam, Sri Rajesh
Kumar Jaiswal, S.C., Sri Vikas Budhwar

Application for retail outlet of Hindustan
Petroleum
Corporation
-rejected-lease
agreement does not contain any sub lease
clause-apart from original lessor-two other
persons were co-sharers in the said land-this
facts
not
disclosed-this
corretion
not
permissible after submission of form-impugned
order perfect-W.P. dismissed.

Cases Cited-

## Text

440 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

10. In our view, the nature of
mistake
in
the
affidavit
requires
correction in the affidavit. It was not a
matter of verification of the affidavit.
Hence, in view of clear prohibition that
after the affidavit sworn, it cannot be
corrected. In the present case, Rule 18
of Chapter IV is attracted. Accordingly
no correction is permissible, if there is
no defect in the affidavit. But as held
by Supreme Court in Dwarka Nath
(supra) a defect in verification clause
whether an affidavit has been sworn on
the basis of personal knowledge or on
perusal
of
document,
it
can
be
corrected by giving opportunity to the
petitioner to rectify the mistake.

11. In view of the said fact, the
learned counsel for the petitioner seeks
the leave of this Court to withdraw this
writ petition to file better affidavit.

12. The leave is granted.

13. The writ petition is dismissed
with the liberty to file a fresh writ
petition.
----------
(2020)02ILR A440

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 31.10.2019

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE BALA KRISHNA NARAYANA,
J.
THE HON'BLE PRAKASH PADIA, J.

Writ C No. 36047 of 2016

Ram Autar ...Petitioner
Versus
Union of India & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Birendra Singh, Sri P.K. Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
A.S.G.I., Sri Ghan Shyam, Sri Rajesh
Kumar Jaiswal, S.C., Sri Vikas Budhwar

Application for retail outlet of Hindustan
Petroleum
Corporation
-rejected-lease
agreement does not contain any sub lease
clause-apart from original lessor-two other
persons were co-sharers in the said land-this
facts
not
disclosed-this
corretion
not
permissible after submission of form-impugned
order perfect-W.P. dismissed.

Cases Cited-

1. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. and
others
Vs.
Swapnil
Singh,
Civil
Appeal
no.69286929/2015

2. Smt. Sunita Gupta Vs. Union of India and
others reported in 2009 (7) ADJ 534 (DB)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Prakash Padia, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the
petitioner.

2. Sri R. K. Jaiswal learned counsel
has
accepted
notice
on
behalf
of
respondent no. 1 and Sri Vikas Budhwar,
learned counsel has put his appearance on
behalf of respondent nos. 2 and 3.

3. Sri Ghanshyam, Advocate, has
filed an application for impleadment on
behalf of newly added respondent Smt.
Jyoti Yadav w/o Sri Prashant Kumar
Yadav.

4. The petitioner has preferred the
present writ petition challenging the order
dated 09.07.2016 passed by the Chief
Regional Manager, Hindustan Petroleum
Corporation Limited, 85/4, Ispat Bhawan
3rd Floor, Sanjay Place, Agra/respondent
no. 3 with further prayer to issue a
2 All. Ram Autar Vs. Union of India & Ors.
441
mandamus commanding the respondents,
specially respondent no. 3 to include the
application of the petitioner in the
forthcoming lottery draw for selection of
retail outlet of Hindustan Petroleum
Corporation for the location in question
namely Faizabad Shamshabad Road KM.
Stone
between
2
and
4
District
Farrukhabad under the OBC category.

5. Facts in brief as contained in the
writ petition are that an advertisement was
published by the respondent corporation
on 13.10.2014 inviting applications from
interested persons in respect of grant of
retail outlet distributorship for various
locations
including
the
location
in
question.

6. It is contended in the writ petition that
the petitioner is OBC category candidate. He
applied on a prescribed form for the retail
outlet in question. In this regard the petitioner
had taken land on lease for a period of 30 years
from one of the co-sharer of Khata No.356,
Khasra No.202 area 0.9590 hectare situated in
Village Khanpur, Pargana-shamshad, Tehsil
Kayamganj, District Farrukhabad.

7. The application form submitted by the
petitioner was duly examined by the
respondent no.3/Chief Regional Manager,
Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd.85/4,
Ispat Bhawan, 3rd Floor, Sanjay Place, Agra,
and he informed the petitioner that the
candidatures of the petitioner was not found
eligible for retail outlet dealership due to
following reasons :-

a. The Khasra/khatauni/gata no. is
not mentioned in the lease deed of the offered
land.

b. The lease agreement for the
offered land does not contain sublease clause,
on the contrary sub-lease is barred.

8. In the aforesaid letter it is further stated
that if the petitioner has any grievance he can
make an application/representation within 10
days from the date of the letter. It is further
contended that the petitioner has submitted his
representation on 4.6.2016. Along with the
said representation the petitioner submitted the
extract of Khatauni no.18020901052 of Khata
No.356, Khasra No.202 area 0.9590 hectare
situated
in
Village
Khanpur,
Parganashamshad,
Tehsil
Kayamganj,
District
Farrukhabad in the name of Smt. Munni Devi,
Revenue Map of the said khata and land
drawing map of proposed outlet. Apart from
the
same
petitioner
also
submitted
a
supplementary/corrigendum of lease deed
executed by Smt. Munni Devi in favour of
petitioner, which was registered on 4.6.2016 in
the office of Sub Registrar, Kayamganj.

9. In view of the aforesaid it is argued by
learned counsel for the petitioner that the
petitioner has already removed all the
shortcoming, which were very minor in nature
and as such petitioner became entitled for
consideration of his application form for the
grant of retail outlet in question.

10. The representation submitted by
the
petitioner
was
rejected
by
the
respondent no.3 vide its order dated
09.7.2016. By the aforesaid order, the
petitioner was informed that since he does
not fulfill the norms for providing land in
accordance with the Point No.4(vi) (kha)
of the Dealer Selection Guidelines thus his
application cannot be accepted. The order
dated 9.7.2016 passed by the respondent
no.3 is under challenge in the present writ
petition.

11. It is argued by learned counsel
for the petitioner that in response to the
letter dated 26.5.2016 by which certain
shortcomings
were
informed
to
the
442 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
petitioner were removed by him while
submitting certain papers and documents
along-with
his
representation
dated
4.6.2016. In view of the aforesaid it is
argued that since the shortcomings pointed
out by the respondent no.3 had already
been removed, the order dated 9.7.2016
passed by him is absolutely arbitrary in
nature and the same is liable to be set
aside. It is further argued that by way of
supplementary/corrigendum of lease dated
4.6.2016 all the shortcomings in land were
removed by the petitioner.

12. In the said affidavit it is stated
that total four applications were submitted
for the aforesaid location, out of which
three
were
rejected
including
the
application form of the present petitioner
at the time of scrutiny itself. In view of the
aforesaid the only applicant was left to be
considered for the grant of retail outlet
dealership is Smt. Jyoti Yadav, the
proposed applicant for impleadment.

13. It is argued by Sri Vikas
Budhwar,
learned
counsel
for
the
respondent
Hindustan
Petroleum
Corporation
that
along-with
the
application form petitioner has submitted a
lease deed dated 31.10.2014. From perusal
of the same it is clear that there is neither
any reference to gata number sought to be
leased out nor any condition with respect
to sub lease in favour of respondent
corporation. During the course of scrutiny
certain discrepancies were found in the
application form of the petitioner as such a
letter dated 26.5.2016 was written by the
respondent no.3 to the petitioner. In
response to the aforesaid letter petitioner
submitted
his
representation
dated
4.6.2016.
Along-with
the
aforesaid
representation the petitioner has appended
a correction deed dated 4.6.2016 making
correction in the lease deed dated
31.10.2014. It is further argued that vide
correction deed dated 4.6.2016 petitioner
has sought correction in the lease deed
dated 31.10.2014 to the effect that gata
no.202 was sought to be mentioned and for
the first time provision of sub lease in
favour of respondent corporation was
made, copy of the correction deed dated
4.6.2016 is appended as annexure 3 to the
counter affidavit. It is further argued by Sri
Vikas Budhwar that after considering the
representation
of
the
petitioner,
the
corporation authorities passed the order
dated 09.7.2016 whereby the claim set up
by the petitioner was found "unsuitable"
on the ground that in view of express
condition of Clause 14-H (Viii) no
alteration/addition/deletion is permissible
after submission of the application form. It
is further argued that the procedure and
manner according to which selection ought
to be conducted in respect of retail outlet is
set out in the brochure for the selection of
"Dealer for Regular and Rural Retail
Outlet". The relevant clause being clause4(vi) is reproduced hereinbelow :-

'(VI). Land (Applicable to all
categories)

The
applications
would
be
classified into two groups as mentioned
below based on the land offered by them in
the application form.

" Group 1: Applicants having
suitable piece of land in the advertised
location/area
either
by
way
of
ownership/long terms lease for a period of
minimum 30 years (as advertised by the
Oil Company).

Group 2: Applicants having
Firm Offer for a suitable piece of land for
purchase of long term lease for a period of
minimum 30 years (as advertised by the
Oil Company).
2 All. Ram Autar Vs. Union of India & Ors.
443

The
other
conditions
with
respect to offering of land are as under:

a) The land should be available
with the applicant on the date of affidavit
and should have minimum lease of 30
years (as advertised by the concerned Oil
Company) from the date or after the date
of advertisement but not later than the
date of affidavit (Appendix- XA/XB)

b) If the offered land is on Long
term lease then the Lease agreement
should have a provision to sub-leased the
land wherever the locations are advertised
under Gorpus Fund Scheme (CFS), Other
(Corporation owned Sites ('A"/'CC" sites)
and Company leased sites.

For
Dealer
owned
sites
('B"/'DC" sites) the applicant should
ensure that the land arranged by the
applicant is either registered in the
applicant's name or leased in favour of the
applicant for a minimum period of 30
years as advertised by the concerned Oil
Company)

c) The applicant (s) under
Group-1, should furnish at least one of the
following
documents
in
support
of
ownership
of
land
offered
for
the
Dealership.

*
Khasra/Khatauni
or
any
equivalent revenue document or Certified
from revenue official confirming status of
the ownership of the land.

*
Registered
Sale
deed/Registered Gift deed.

* Registered Lease deed for a
minimum period 30 years as advertised by
the concerned Oil Company.

*
Any
other
type
of
ownership/transfer deed document

* Lease agreement or firm
allotment
letter
issued
by
Government/Semi Government bodies.

d) The land owned by the family
members (the family will comprise of the
:Family Unit" as defined in Multiple
dealership
norms
under
clause
10
"Disqualification' will also be considered
as belonging to the applicant/subject to
producing the consent letter in the form of
affidavit
(Appendix
-VA)
from
the
concerned member(s) of the 'family unit'

e) The eligibility of the Land will
be decided by Oil Company with reference
to a confirmatory letter from an advocate
(Appendix VB) to be arranged by the
applicant.

f) In case the applicant or
member (s) of 'family unit' own the land
jointly with third person, the consent letter
in the form of an affidavit (Appendix VA)
or Power of Attorney clearly authorizing
the applicant for such use of land from
third person is also required.

g) The 'firm offer' of land will
include land offer from third party based
on Agreement to purchase/long term lease
(as per terms and conditions of the OMCs)
offer/letter should be in the form of an
Affidavit (Appendix VA) or Power of
Attorney for the purpose along with one of
the documents mentioned in (c) above, in
support of ownership of land offered for
the Dealership.

h)
Various
situations
of
ownership for defining owned/firm offer
are as under:

S.No
Situation
of
ownership
Share of
applicant
in land
Additional
documents
required
Evaluati
on as
GROUP 1
1
Self
Full
Nil
Owned
2
Self
with
members of
family unit or
owned
exclusively
by
family
members
Part/Nil
Consent
letter in the
form
of
affidavit
from
members
of
family
unit-
Appendix
Owned
444 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
V A
3
.Self
with
other owners
.
Family
members
with
other
owner(s)
. Self with
family
members
&
other owners
Part
Nil
Part
If the share
of
the
applicant
and/or
family
members is
more than
or equal to
land
required by
the
company.
Consent
letter
on
stamp
paper or an
affidavit or
Power
of
Attorney
from
all
Coowner(s)
should be
providedAppendixV A.
Owned
4
Land owned
by
Government/
SemiGovernment
bodies
Full
Allotment
Letter from
the
Governme
nt/SemiGovernme
nt
bodies
in
the
name
of
Self
with
specific
mention
for use of
petrol
pump.
Owned
GROUP 2
5
Land owned
by third party
in part or full
Part/Nil
Consent
letter in the
form
of
affidavit/P
ower
of
Attorney
from other
owner(s)-
Appendix
V A
Firm
Offer

i) Each applicant will have to
declare in the form the category under
which offered land falls Supporting the
above, a conformity letter from an
advocate (Appendix V B) giving details of
the current ownership documents relied
upon and the category under which the
land falls (Group 1 or 2) also is to be
submitted. The eligibility and the Group
under which the applicants land falls,
would be determined based on the
declaration given in the application
confirmatory letter from the advocate and
relevant Clause of the affidavit (Appendix
XA/XB as applicable) regarding the same.

j) Verification of the supporting
documents submitted by the applicant will
be carried out for the selected candidates
at
the
time
of
Field
Verification
Credentials"

Note:

a)
'Own'
means
having
ownership by way of Registered Sale deed,
Registered Gift deed etc. or title of the
property or registered long lease (as per
individual OMC norms) in the name of
applicant/'family unit' as defined in
multiple dealership norm under clause 10
(Disqualification)

b) Only one piece of suitable
land to be offered by the applicant.

c) In-spite of above, if an
applicant offers more than one land then,
a confirmation in writing is to be obtained
by Land Evaluation Committee (LEC)
from the applicant with regard to the plot
of land to be considered.

d) The same piece of land cannot
be offered by more than one applicant for
a particular RO location against an
advertisement. In case more than one
application is received offering the same
piece of land all such applications would
be rejected.

e) The selected candidate has to
make available the offered land duly
developed up to the road level by
cutting/filling (as applicable) with good
2 All. Ram Autar Vs. Union of India & Ors.
445
earth/murum layerwise compacted as per
standard engineering practice to the
satisfaction of the concerned OMC. The
selected candidate is also required to
provide retaining wall and compound wall
of min. height: 1.5 meters designed as per
site conditions as per approval of OMC

f) There is no commitment by the
Oil Company for taking the offered land
from the applicant, if an applicant after
selection is unable to provide the land
indicated in the application form within a
period of 2 months (for Group 1) and 4
months (for Group 2) from the date of
Letter of Intent (LOI) Oil Company will
have the right to cancel/withdraw the LOI
issued in favour of the selected candidate
for allotment of dealership'.

14. It is further argued by Sri Vikas
Budhwar
that
in
the
present
case
admittedly at the time of submission of
application form dated 16.11.2014, though
the petitioner mentioned in Clause 9 of his
application form khasra and khatauni
number 202 and appended the lease deed
executed by one Smt. Munni Devi wife of
Roshan Lal in favour of petiitoner on
31.10.2014 but in the said lease deed
neither the gata number was mentioned
nor there was any provision of sub lease as
provided under Clause 4 -(Vi-b) of the
selection guidelines. Apart from the same
petitioner
in
the
lease
deed
dated
31.10.2014 depicted himself to be the sole
and exclusive owner of the land which was
sought to be leased out. However,
subsequently
after
rejection
of
his
candidature
on
26.5.2016
petitioner
submitted a representation dated 4.6.2016
making correction in the lease deed dated
31.7.2014 with respect to khasra no.202
whereby besides lessor being Smt. Munni
Devi names of two persons namely Jaiveer
and Havaldar was also mentioned as coowners. The aforesaid facts were not
disclosed by the petitioner at the time of
submission of his form that these persons
were co-owners of the land in question.
Apart from the same no consent letter
from the co-owners was submitted alongwith the application form as required
under Clause 4 (Vi) of the brochure as
quoted above.

15. Sri Vikash Budhwar, learned
counsel for the respondent-corporation
relied the following judgements :-

I. Civil Appeal Nos.6928-6929
of 2015 (Bharat Petroleum Corporation
Ltd. and others Vs. Swapnil Singh)
decided on September 8, 2015.

II. Smt. Sunita Gupta Vs. Union
of India and others reported in 2009 (7)
ADJ 534 (DB).

16. During the course of arguments
certain
papers
and
documents
were
provided by Sri Vikash Budhwar, learned
counsel for the respondent corporation, the
same are taken on record. It reveals from
perusal of the aforesaid papers that the
respondent no.4 was issued a letter of
intent by the respondent corporation on
29.6.2018,
thereafter
no
objection
certificate was also issued on 15.2.2019. It
is contended by Sri Vikash Budhwar that
after the aforesaid proceedings, a letter of
appointment was also issued in favour of
the respondent no.4 and the respondent
no.4 is at present running the retail outlet.

17. A short counter affidavit was also
filed by Sri. R. K. Jaiswal, learned counsel
on behalf of respondent no.1/Union of
India. In the aforesaid short counter
affidavit it is stated that after dismantling
of the Administered Pricing Mechanism
(APM) in the petroleum section with effect
446 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
from 1.4.2002, the selection process of
dealers/distributors for retail outlets (petrol
pumps)/LPG distributorships (cooking gas
agencies) is done by the oil marketing
companies themselves subject to broad
policy guidelines issued by Ministry from
time to time relating to matters, like
reservation
for
weaker
section,
reconstitution, revival of defunct outlets,
resitement, and transparency in selection.
The public section oil companies enjoy
commercial freedom in the matter of
marketing/distribution
of
petroleum
products,
through
their
respective
networks of retail outlet dealership, LPG
distributorships
and
SKO-LDO
dealerships. The oil companies choose
their own locations for setting up such
dealerships/distributorship, if found viable
after feasibility study thereof by the oil
companies themselves. The Government
has no role in the selection of sites. It may
be noted that the answering respondent
vide its letter dated 19th August, 2003 has
advised certain broad parameters to the oil
marketing companies and, thereafter, the
companies frame their own guidelines for
selection of dealers/distributorships.

18. It is further stated in
paragraph 5 of the short counter
affidavit that the Ministry of Petroleum
& Natural Gas, Government of India
has issued letter dated 02nd September,
2005 for pleading before the Hon'ble
Courts all over the country to delete
the Union of India from the array of
respondents, at the time of admission
stage itself. The copy of letter dated
2nd September, 2005 is annexed as
annexure no.S.C.A.-2 to the short
counter affidavit.

19. Heard learned counsel for the
parties.

20. With the consent of learned
counsel for the parties present writ petition
is being disposed of finally at the
admission stage.

21. From perusal of the facts as
narrated above, it is clear that in terms of
the advertisement dated 11.10.2014, an
application form was submitted by the
petitioner for grant of retail outlet
dealership. Since certain discrepancies
were found in the application form
submitted by the petitioner a letter dated
26.5.2016 was written by the respondent
no.3 to the petitioner. A reply dated
4.6.2016 was submitted by the petitioner
stating therein that the discrepancies were
duly removed. After the aforesaid letter
was received in the office of the
respondent corporation, the corporation
rejected the same vide its order dated
9.7.2016 on the ground that Clause 4 (Vi)
(kha) of the guidelines were not fulfilled
by the petitioner. It reveals from perusal of
the records that while submitting the
application
form
the
petitioner
has
submitted certain papers and documents.
Two short comings were pointed out in the
application form of the petitioner namely
khasra/khatauni number is not mentioned
in the lease deed and lease agreement does
not contain any sub lease clause. After the
aforesaid letter was received by the
petitioner he submitted a representation.
Along-with
representation
petitioner
appended the correction dated 4.6.2016
making corrections in the lease deed dated
31.10.2014. By the aforesaid corrections
the petitioner had sought correction in the
lease deed dated 31.10.2014 to the effect
that gata no.202 was sought to be
mentioned and for the first time provision
of sub lease in favour of the respondent
corporation was also mentioned. The
petitioner
tried
to
remove
the
2 All. Ram Autar Vs. Union of India & Ors.
447
discrepancies as pointed out by the
corporation vide letter dated 26.5.2016.
Apart from the original lessor of the land
two other persons namely Jaiveer and
Havaldar were also co-sharers in the land.
The aforesaid fact was not disclosed at any
point of time by the petitioner or by Smt.
Munni
Devi
before
respondent
corporation. No consent letters of the
aforesaid co-sharers were submitted by the
petitioner along-with his application form.
Apart from the same corrections, which
were made by the petitioner in the
correction deed were also not liable to be
taken into consideration by the respondent
corporation due to the fact that these
corrections are not permissible after
submission of the application form.

22. In the case of Bharat Petroleum
Corporation Ltd. (supra) it was held by
the Supreme Court that :-

"We have gone through the
records of the case along with the
assistance of learned counsel for the
parties and we find that the brochure
read with the application form is
absolutely clear in the sense that the
applicant
must
be
the
owner
of
specified area of land or must have a
registered lease deed of the specified
area of land on the date of application.
The admitted position (which is also
clear from the counter affidavit filed by
the respondent in this Court) is that on
13th
September,
2011
when
the
application for allotment was made,
the respondent was neither the owner
of any land nor had any registered sale
deed/lease deed in her name. In fact,
the lease deed came into existence only
on 20th December, 2012, and that was
registered on 21st December, 2012.
Clearly, on the date of the application,
the respondent was not eligible in
terms
of
the
brochure
and
the
application form.

The Culcutta High court has
proceeded on the basis of a notarized lease
agreement which appears to have been
produced by the respondent before the High
court, photocopy of the notarized lease
agreement has been shown to us and that
document is dated 13th September, 2011.
Learned counsel for the respondent has relied
upon this document to contend that the
respondent was eligible as on 13th September,
2011 in terms of the notarized lease
agreement.

We are unable to accept this
contention of learned counsel for the
respondent.
The
brochure
and
the
application form clearly require the
applicant to have a registered lease deed
in her name. What is shown to us is a
notarized document and admittedly this
document, even though it may have been in
existence, was formalised into a lease
agreement only on 20th December, 2012
and that was registered on 21st December,
2012. The notarized document, therefore,
does not advance the case of the
respondent any further. Therefore, it is
quite clear that the respondent was not
eligible on the date of application, i.e.,
13th September, 2011.
Under the circumstances, we allow these
appeals and set aside the order passed by
the Division Bench of the Culcutta High
Court. No costs."

23. In the case of Smt. Sunita Gupta
(supra) it was held by the Division Bench
of this Court that :-

"23. Para 12.1 of guidelines for
selection of retail outlet dealers, provides
that
an
application
form
alongwith
relevant documents should be submitted
448 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
within
the
time
prescribed,no
addition/deletion/alteration
will
be
permitted in the application once it is
submitted.
No
additional
documents
whatsoever will be accepted or considered
after the cut-off date of the application. In
the present writ petition we have found
that the petitioner could not file all
required documents alongwith application
form. The land proposed for the purpose
was found joint ownership of several
persons including her husband and no
valid and legal partition of the land took
place between them. The petitioner's
husband was not found the sole owner of
the land offered by her for retail outlet
dealership. Under these circumstances the
respondents were justified in reviewing the
decision taken by the selection committee
and cancelling the interview and selection
of the petitioner.

24. On the basis of above
submissions made by learned counsel for
parties and their pleadings as well as the
documents filed on record. We have found
that the respondents have not committed
any
mistake
in
not
taking
into
consideration the documents which have
been submitted subsequent to last date of
submission of the application form,
because those documents could not be
considered in view of Para 12.1 of
guidelines. We have also observed that the
respondents have afforded full opportunity
to the petitioner of being heard and there
is no violation of natural justice. No
opportunity appears to have been afforded
to the petitioner before cancellation of
selection, but in pursuance of the order
passed by this Court in writ petition, the
respondents have afforded full opportunity
to the petitioner of being heard on her
representation. The respondents have
rightly rejected the representation of the
petitioner through detailed and speaking
order, which does not suffer from any
infirmity, mistake or error, because the
husband of the petitioner has not been
found exclusive owner and in possession of
the land proposed for retail outlet and no
legal partition has taken place among all
co-sharers as memorandum of alleged
partition dated 3.7.1984 is a waste paper
having no evidentiary value, which cannot
be relied on and referred to in any
proceeding.

25. Under these circumstances
no principles of natural justice has been
violated by the respondents. The petitioner
herself concealed the important facts at
the time of presenting her application form
and interview about the ownership of land
and infrastructure facility. Thus the
decision has been validly reviewed and
selection of the petitioner has been rightly
cancelled, which cannot be said to be
vitiated
in
view
of
any
fact
and
circumstance.
The
selection
of
the
petitioner does not confer any right to a
prospective candidate because no letter of
intent has been issued by the respondents
in pursuance of the selection and no
agreement has been executed by the
parties in response to above selection."

24. In view of the facts as stated
above, we are of the opinion that the order
passed by the respondent no.3 dated
9.7.2016, which is impugned in the present
writ petition is absolutely perfect and valid
order and does not call for any interference
by this Court specially under Article 226
of the Constitution of India.

25. The writ petition being devoid of
merit is dismissed.
----------
(2020)02ILR A448

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE