JUDGMENT :

Amreshwar Pratap Sahi, J.

Heard learned Senior Counsel for the appellants Shri K. D. Chatterji and Shri Subodh Kumar Jha, learned counsel for the respondent-petitioner.

2. The dispute lies in a very short compass where the claim of the respondent-petitioner in respect of award of LPG dealership on the basis of land offered for the site of a godown has been allowed by the learned Single Judge. The impugned judgement of the learned Single Judge has been assailed by the Indian Oil Corporation on the ground that the terms and conditions of the advertisement, the brochure and the requirement of the documents as per the settled guidelines had not been tendered by the respondent-petitioner, hence the dealership could not be awarded to the respondent-petitioner on the basis of a subsequent rectification deed as tendered by the said respondent. The contention, therefore, is that the learned Single Judge has committed an error in carving out a distinction by not applying the law of the Division Bench of this Court correctly as enunciated in the case of M/s Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Raj Kumar Jha & Ors., (2012) 2 PLJR 783.

3. There are certain admitted facts which remain undisputed, namely, that the last date for filling up of the application form and tendering the same was 14th of August, 2017 for award of an LPG dealership for which land was required for setting up of a godown.

4. The respondent-petitioner applied and undisputedly the offered land was under a lease which was described as Plot No.123 of Khata No.356 with specific boundaries. According to the guidelines, a field verification was carried out and then it was pointed out to the applicant-respondent-petitioner that the said land does not meet the eligibility criteria and consequently an opportunity was given to the respondent-petitioner to offer an alternate land as per the guidelines.

5. The respondent-petitioner instead of availing of the opportunity of offering an alternate land, tendered a rectification deed dated 12th of June, 2018 wherein he took the stand that the Khata and the plot number of the land offered in the original application form was an incorrect recital on account of the mistake in the lease deed itself and, therefore, the same has been rectified through a separate deed (Shudhi Patra) and, therefore, the same land which has been tendered by him should be treated to be the land offered by the respondent-petitioner.

6. The report of the field verification as well as the tendering of this rectification deed has not been accepted by the Indian Oil Corporation where after aggrieved the respondent-petitioner filed the writ petition that has been allowed holding that the rectification deed dated 12th June, 2018 and the original lease deed should be read as one and the same document, inasmuch as, the boundaries of the said plot offered and that was verified during field verification does not stand altered. The learned Single Judge therefore, held that if the land remains the same, then the Indian Oil Corporation cannot take a plea that there is any error in the application form and also that the respondent-petitioner had not misrepresented in any way so as to make him ineligible. While considering the impact of the Division Bench judgement in the case of M/s Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Raj Kumar Jha & Ors (supra), the learned Single Judge distinguished the same on the ground that in that case there was an error which was found to be unacceptable and, therefore, the facts of the said case would not lead to a ratio so as to apply on the facts of the present case.

7. Learned counsel for the appellants contends that the distinction drawn is artificial, but the ratio of the said decision squarely applies, inasmuch as, in the instant case, the respondent-petitioner himself has admitted the mistake which is evident from tendering of the rectification deed itself. It is, therefore, submitted that keeping in view the terms and conditions of the