Inadvertent clerical errors in applications do not constitute non-rectifiable deficiencies under dealer selection guidelines, allowing for correction without affecting material particulars.

JUDGMENT :

M.S. KARNIK, J.

1. The challenge in this Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is to the communication dated 1^st January 2025. The Respondent - Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. (‘IOCL’ for short) rejected the Petitioner’s application/ candidature for petrol pump dealership of IOCL. The Petitioner while filling up the online application form, inadvertently committed a minor clerical/typographical error in typing the last numerical field of Hissa number of the land. Instead of Survey No.34/1/D/2/1, wrongly Survey No.34-1D/2/3 was typed.

2. The advertisement was issued by the IOCL on 20^th June 2023. The petitioner submitted the application as an individual in Group 1 category (owner of land) on 14^th September 2023. The draw of lots for selection of applications was scheduled on 25^th September 2024. The Petitioner’s candidature was provisionally selected on 26^th September 2024. In the second email by IOCL, the Petitioner was asked to remit Rs.50,000/- towards initial security deposit and also to submit all the requisite documents. The Petitioner remitted the initial security deposit. The Petitioner submitted all the requisite documents including title documents and plot sketch.

3. By the impugned communication dated 10^th October 2024 the Petitioner’s application was rejected due to a minor clerical/typographical error. The Petitioner made a representation against the rejection of his candidature on 19^th October 2024. By the impugned communication dated 1^st January 2025 the Respondent informed that its two member committee had scrutinised the application and found that there was discrepancy in the land details provided in the application form and the supporting documents.

4. Learned Senior Advocate for the Petitioner assailing the decision to reject the petitioner’s candidature submitted that such rejection is on a hyper-technical ground. In support of the submissions, reliance is placed on the decisions of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Gosala Raju vs. The Indian Oil Corporation Limited and Ors., 2021 0 Supreme (AP) 201, The Indian Oil Corporation Limited vs. Gosala Raju S/o Mohan Rao, 2022 0 AIR(AP)(NOC) 260 and the judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Rajesh Parmar vs. Under Secretary, Petroleum Corporation and Another, Writ Petition No. 18769 of 2017 dated 26th March 2019.

5. On the other hand, Mr. Sunil Gangan, learned counsel for the IOCL submitted that the rejection was justified as under Clause 23(p) of the dealer selection guidelines, thedefect in the application of the Petitioner falls under the category of non-rectifiable deficiencies. He submits that the Committee scrutinised the application and for valid reasons rejected the candidature of the Petitioner. Mr. Gangan was at pains to point out that the guidelines clearly stipulate that any changes in the land Survey number is not permissible and hence the decision of the Committee cannot be faulted as the same is in consonance with the guidelines. It is submitted that the Petitioner had adequate notice that no such change is permissible once the application is made. It is further submitted that the decision of the IOCL is strictly in accordance with the guidelines.

6. We have heard learned counsel. The Petitioner contends that there is a typographic error in the last numerical field of Hissa number of the land. Instead of Survey No.34/1/D/2/1, wrongly Survey No.34-1D/2/3 was typed. The guidelines on selection of dealers for regular and rural retail outlets through draw of lots/bidding process provides for list of non-rectifiable deficiencies in applications in Clause 23.Clause 23(p) reads thus :-

“23. LIST OF NON-RECTIFIABLE DEFICIENCIES IN APPLICATIONS

The following deficiencies in the application form for Retail Outlet Dealer Selection are non-rectifiable and such applications will not be considered for further selection process.

p) Changes in Khasra/Khatouni/Gut/Survey No. etc. of offered land.”

7. Having gone through clause 23(p), we are not in