The rejection of an LPG distributorship application is valid if eligibility criteria related to land ownership, as per selection guidelines, are not met, and principles of natural justice are not violated.

JUDGMENT :

B Krishna Mohan, J.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the Petroleum Oil Corporation.

2. This writ petition is filed questioning the action of the 4th respondent in issuing the impugned letter vide Ref.No.AS/VLRO dated 12.04.2023 rejecting the application of the petitioner for award of LPG Distributorship at Kakinada-3 District, East Godavari District under open category advertised on 15.09.2013.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner submitted the application vide serial No.12604/135/013 for award of LPG Distributorship at Kakinada-3 District, East Godavari District under open category advertised on 15.09.2013. Then, the 4th respondent vide letter dated 01.02.2023 addressed to the petitioner informing that he was qualified for redraw for selection of LPG Distributorship, for which, he was requested to be present personally for the redraw from 14 hours onwards on 23.02.2023 as detailed in the said letter dated 01.02.2023. Accordingly, he appeared on the said date and participated in the redraw.

4. Immediately on the next day, the 4th respondent addressed a letter to the petitioner dated 24.02.2023 informing that the petitioner has been selected in the draw by displaying the draw results in the notice board and the Corporation website. He was further advised to submit a sum of Rs.25,000/- for processing the field verification credentials of the petitioner’s application directing the petitioner to make such payment within 7 days from the date of receipt of the said letter. The said letter further cautions that in case of any discrepancies observed during the verification of credentials submitted by the petitioner, the above said sum of Rs.25,000/- will be forfeited. Along with the petitioner/applicant the other 7 applicants were qualified for the above said redraw, but the petitioner alone was selected in that redraw on the above said date i.e., on 23.02.2023. The petitioner paid the above said amount of Rs.25,000/- towards FVC fee for the location Kakinada-3 vide demand draft dated 26.02.2023 and the same was acknowledged by the 4th respondent through the letter dated 28.03.2023 addressed to the petitioner.

5. Thereafter, the Field Verification was held in the presence of the petitioner, his family members and others concerned. But to the utter surprise and dismay of the petitioner, the 4th respondent issued the impugned letter dated 12.04.2023 informing the petitioner that the following variances were observed upon field verification for the information submitted by the petitioner in his application:

1. As per clause 6.1 vii of selection guidelines for regular distributorship May 2013, you do not have own/registered lease for godown as on last date of submission of application or your family unit. Hence not meeting minimum requirement as per selection guidelines for Regular LPG Distributorship May 2013.

2. As per clause 6.1 viii of selection guidelines for regular distributorship May 2013, you do not have own/registered lease land for showroom as on last date of submission of application or your family unit. Hence not meeting minimum requirement as per selection guidelines for Regular LPG Distributorship May 2013.

6. In view of the above said variances, the application of the petitioner was rejected forfeiting the above said amount of Rs.25,000/- under the impugned letter dated 12.04.2023.

7. On 25.04.2023 and 14.05.2023, the petitioner got addressed two recommendation letters from the Member of Parliament loksabha, Amalapuram addressed to th