The court emphasized the importance of fairness, reasonableness, and objectivity in the Corporation's decision-making process, and held that typographical errors that do not affect eligibility should not lead to rejection of candidature.

NILU AGRAWAL, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent, Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. and learned counsel for the State.

2. Petitioner seeks quashing of the letter dated 06.07.2018 issued by the respondent no. 3, the Deputy General Manager (LPG-S), Indane Area Office, Patna by which the candidature of the petitioner as selected candidate has been rejected on the ground that during field verification, the land offered had a different khata and plot number and that the petitioner had furnished incorrect information as per clause-6 of his application. The other ground for cancellation was that the petitioner did not provide any alternate land for construction of LPG showroom.

3. The short facts giving rise to the present writ application are that the petitioner being desirous of LPG Distributorship applied through an application dated 17.07.2017 in pursuance to the advertisement issued by the respondent I.O.C. During field verification, it was found that the leased land for showroom had different khata number and plot number being khesara No. 356 new and plot no. 123 new. On coming to know of the said mistake in the registered lease deed, the petitioner applied before the registering authority and on 15.03.2018 vide Annexure-3, said khata and khesara number was corrected to khata no. 300 and plot no. 122 new. A registered Sudhipatra was also drawn on 11.06.2018 rectifying the said mistake. However, there was no change in the size, area and boundary of the plot so offered for LPG showroom.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that registered lease deed which had incorrect khata and plot number on coming to know was rectified but the said mistake did not alter the size and boundary of the plot offered for showroom in the application of the petitioner and was neither a false information/suppression/misrepresentation, incorrect or false statement affecting eligibility of the candidature of the petitioner. The said lease deed dated 15.07.2017 was filed before the last date of application last date being 14.08.2017. He submits that the typographical mistake of khata number and plot number did not change the nature, size and boundary of the plot which was subsequently corrected on 15.03.2018 and a Sudhipatra to that affect was also registered on 11.06.2018. Hence, the subsequent corrected lease deed did not in any way amount to a different plot with different size but a mere correction of typographical mistake which does not amount to suppression, misrepresentation or such false and incorrect information affecting the very eligibility of the petitioner for LPG Distributorship. He thus, assails the order dated 06.07.2018 rejecting the candidature of the petitioner for LPG Distributorship.

5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent, Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., however, submits that the eligibility criteria has to be construed in a very strict sense as per the terms of the advertisement. He submits that as per the own showing, petitioner had filed the corrected lease deed on 12.06.2018 stating therein that he did not have any alternate land for LPG showroom which is Annexure-R/1 to the counter affidavit. He contends that since the corrected lease deed was filed after the last date of application i.e. 14.08.2017, the candidature has rightly been rejected. He further submits that the said incorrect lease deed filed along with the application on 17.07.2017 is also not in line with the declaration of applicant in para-6 of the application and as per clause-26 of the Brochure of Unified Guidelines for selection of LPG Distributors false information has been submitted by the petitioner. Hence, his candidature has been rightly rejected. He submits that the terms and conditions of the advertisement vide clause-5 "Ga" and clause 26 of the guidelines postulates that if any statement is incorrect or false affecting eligibility then the candidature is liable to be