JUDGMENT :

M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY, J.

1. This writ appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent is preferred by the Indian Oil Corporation Limited and two others against the order dated 16.04.2021 passed in W.P. No. 8450 of 2019, whereunder the learned single Judge while holding that the rejection of application of the writ petitioner on the ground of non-mentioning of survey number is illegal, directed respondent Nos. 1 to 3 therein to entrust the dealership of Retail Outlet at Koduru on Vullipalem Road, Koduru Mandal, Krishna District, to the writ petitioner by completing the formalities and by terminating the dealership of the 5th respondent therein in two weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order.

2. The 1st appellant-Indian Oil Corporation issued a notification for appointment of retail outlet at Koduru village, Koduru Mandal, Krishna District under Scheduled Caste (SC) category on 25.11.2018 vide paper publication in Eenadu Telugu daily. The writ petitioner being a member of Scheduled Caste community and having possessed requisite qualification, submitted online application dated 22.12.2018 annexing requisite documents vide reference application No. 15454925764175 and also in physical form dated 13.02.2019. The 1st appellant-Corporation conducted draw of lots of all applications on 06.02.2019 and selected the writ petitioner as eligible for allotment of dealership for the above mentioned location. On 09.02.2019, the 1st appellant-Corporation sent an e-mail directing the writ petitioner to submit relevant documents and other information and the writ petitioner obliged and submitted the same on 13.02.2019 to one Mr. Srivardhan Reddy, Senior Manager, IOCL Divisional Office at Vijayawada. During scrutiny, it was found that the writ petitioner mentioned wrong survey number of the offered land (mentioned registered document number instead of survey number), and the same was intimated to the writ petitioner and thereafter, the 1st appellant Corporation selected the 3rd respondent for allotment of dealership. Challenging the same, the writ petitioner filed the writ petition on the ground that there was a typographical mistake and it is not a ground to reject his application for allotment of dealership of IOCL Retail Outlet at Koduru, whereas respondent Nos. 1 to 3 in the writ petition (appellants herein) raised a contention that it is not a rectifiable mistake and it is a ground to reject the application.

3. The learned single Judge relying upon the principle laid down in Rajesh Parmar vs. Under Secretary, Petroleum Corporation, MANU/MP/0121/2019 and having concluded that the application of the writ petitioner was unjustly and illegally rejected by the 1st appellant-Corporation, issued the directions referred to above. Aggrieved by the order of the learned single Judge, the present appeal is preferred on various grounds.

4. The main ground urged by the appellants is that as per clause (p) of List of Non-Rectifiable Deficiencies, which indicates that change in Khasra No/Khatouni/Gut No/Survey No etc. of offered land is non-rectifiable, non-mentioning of survey number is a non-rectifiable defect and it is a ground for rejecting the application of the petitioner. It is also contended that as per Clause No. 22 of the Guidelines on Selection of Dealers for Regular and Rural Retail Outlets Through Draw of Lots/Bidding Process, if any statement made in the application or in the documents enclosed therewith or subsequently submitted in pursuance of the application by the candidate at any stage is found to have been suppressed/misrepresented/incorrect or false, then the application is liable to be rejected without assigning any reason and in case, the applicant has been appointed as a dealer, the dealership is liable to be terminated, but this guideline was not considered by the learned single Judge.

5. It is also contended that no fundamental rights of the writ petitioner are infringed on account of rejection of his application and