JUDGMENT :

The writ petition has been filed for quashing the letter dated 21.04.2020 issued by the Chief Divisional Retail Sales Manager, Begusarai Divisional Office, Indian Oil Corporation Limited (hereinafter referred to as the "Corporation"), whereby and whereunder the petitioner has been informed that her application for grant of retail outlet dealership of the respondent Corporation has been found ineligible since Khesra No. 633 has been incorrectly stated as Khesra No. 866 in the lease deed. The petitioner further prays for quashing of the E-mail communication dated 16th March, 2020, issued by the Begusarai Divisional office of the respondent Corporation, whereby and whereunder the candidature of the petitioner has been declared to be ineligible. It is also prayed to direct the respondent Corporation to accept the land of the petitioner bearing Khesra No. 633 to be valid and legal.

2. The brief facts of the case are that in response to advertisement issued by the respondent Corporation, the petitioner had submitted an application dated 22.12.2018, wherein, in the space for mentioning the plot number, the petitioner had mentioned the plot no. as 633 and in support thereof a lease deed dated 20.12.2018 was submitted, however, on account of inadvertence the plot number in the said lease deed had been mentioned as 866 which was detected at the time of field verification by the officials of the respondent company. It is the further case of the petitioner that she was declared as a successful candidate in the draw of lots held on 02.07.2019 and subsequently she has also got the lease deed dated 20.12.2018 corrected vide rectification deed dated 17.03.2020, which has also been handed over to the respondent Corporation. In this regard, it has been pointed out that the boundary and area of the land mentioned in both the lease deed dated 20.12.2018 and the rectification deed dated 17.03.2020 are one and the same which goes to further buttress the case of the petitioner to the effect that on account of typographical error, the plot number was wrongly mentioned as 866 in the lease deed dated 20.12.2018 instead of 633. Nonetheless, the respondent corporation has rejected the case of the petitioner for grant of retail outlet dealership vide letter dated 21.04.2020.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the error on the part of the petitioner in mentioning wrong plot number in the original lease deed is on account of an inadvertent mistake and is in fact a rectifiable error. It is further submitted that the case of the petitioner is not that of change of plot number but only pertains to correction of plot number in the lease deed inasmuch as the petitioner has though mentioned the correct plot number in the application but on account of typographical error, the wrong plot No. has been mentioned in the lease deed dated 20.12.2018, for rectification whereof, a rectification deed dated 17.03.2020 has been subsequently furnished by the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the boundary of the land determines the identity of the land and any change in the area or plot number is bound to alter the boundary enclosing the land. Thus, it is submitted that as far as the present case is concerned, the boundary, executant and area as stated in the original lease deed dated 20.12.2018 and that stated in the rectification deed dated 17.03.2020 are one and the same, which further goes to fortify the case of the petitioner to the extent that the error sought to be rectified does not lead to any change in location/site of the offered plot as a whole but only the inadvertent error of mentioning the wrong plot no. in the lease deed dated 20.12.2018 is being rectified. In this regard, the learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to two judgments which are being enumerated herein below along with the relevant extracts thereof:-

(i) AIR 1963 SC 1879 (Sheodhyan Singh &Ors. vs. Sanichara Kuer &