The court ruled that failure to provide an applicant the opportunity to rectify documentation defects prior to application rejection is a violation of natural justice and relevant procedural norms.

JUDGMENT :

ANU SIVARAMAN, J.

The Writ Appeal is filed by the petitioner/appellant challenging the Order dated 25.03.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.10971/2020 (GM- RES).

2. We have heard Shri. Abhinav Ramanand, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, Shri. Vachan H.V., learned counsel appearing for Smt. H. Pavithra and Smt. Kavitha Damodaran, learned advocates appearing for respondents No.1 and 2.

3. It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant that the appellant is a resident of Nitrahalli, Madhugiri Taluk, Tumkur District, applied for a Retail Outlet dealership advertised by the respondents - a Petroleum Refining and Sales Company, particularly of Motor Spirit (Petrol) and High-Speed Diesel Oil (HSD), on 25.11.2018. The dealership was to be located on NH-234 between 9 km to 12 km from Madhugiri towards Sira.

4. The appellant submitted his application under Group-1, offering 10 guntas of land in Sy.No.42/3, Madhugiri Taluk, through a Lease Deed dated 22.12.2018 for a period of 22 years titled 'Jameenina Bhogya Patra (Lease Deed),' at Annexure ‘D’. The respondents informed the appellant that he had qualified for the draw of lots. The appellant participated in the draw of lots conducted on 21.01.2020 and was declared the successful candidate. Subsequently, he was required to submit necessary documents and pay an initial security deposit of Rs.30,000/- which he duly complied with. The next step involved a Field Verification of Credentials (FVC) by respondent No.2, but this was never completed.

5. It is submitted that despite fulfilling all requirements, respondent No.2 on 11.06.2020, issued a communication stating that the land documents provided by the appellant were not valid for consideration under Group- 1. The respondents classified the Lease Deed as a Mortgage Deed, rendering the appellant ineligible under clause 4(v) of the brochure for Dealership Selection Guidelines. As a result, his application was moved to Group-3, where applicants had not offered land. The appellant submits that this action is arbitrary and illegal, as the respondents had misinterpreted his Lease Deed as a Mortgage Deed, leading to his disqualification despite his compliance with the required conditions.

6. It is also submitted that aggrieved by this decision, the appellant challenged the communication dated 11.06.2020 before this Court in W.P.No.10971/2020 (GM- RES). However, by Order dated 25.03.2021, the learned Single Judge upheld the interpretation of the respondents holding that the document produced by the appellant was indeed a Mortgage Deed and not a Lease Deed, and thus did not meet the eligibility criteria for Group-1.

7. According to the advertisement issued by the respondents, the three groups to offer land for the applicants are set-out as under:-

(i) Group 1: Applicants having suitable piece of land in the advertised location/area either by way of ownership/long term lease for a period of minimum 19 years 11 months or as advertised by the OMC (Oil Marketing Companies);

(ii) Group 2: Applicants having Firm Offer for a suitable piece of land for purchase or long-term lease for a period of minimum 19 years 11 months or as advertised by the OMC;

(iii) Group 3: Applicants who have not offered land in the application.

8. It is contended by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant that the communication dated 11.06.2020 was issued without affording the appellant an opportunity to be heard, thereby violating the principles o