ASHWANI KUMAR SINGH, J.:–Heard Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Neeraj Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for the respondents.

2. In the present application, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the letter dated 19.10.2019 issued by the Regional Office of the Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited (for short ‘HPCL’) whereby the candidature of the petitioner for award of Retail Outlet (RO) Dealership at between Parsa Chowk and Sanichari Chowk of NH-28B in the district of West Champaran has been rejected on the ground that the Land Evaluation Committee found the site offered by the petitioner to be not meeting the required norms. Subsequently, the petitioner filed an Interlocutory Application vide I.A. No.02 of 2021 for adding the prayer to quash the part of the selection list by which the respondent-HPCL selected one Rajnish Rao in place of the petitioner.

3. The petitioner’s case succinctly is that respondent- HPCL published notification in the newspaper on 25.11.2018 for appointment of Retail Outlet Dealership for all the States of India including the State of Bihar. Accordingly, an advertisement was published by the HPCL for award of Retail Outlet Dealership at location between Parsa Chowk and Sanichari Chowk on NH-28B in the District of West Champaran under open category. Pursuant to the advertisement, the petitioner filed his application on 24.12.2018. He was informed on 13.06.2019 that he has qualified for the draw of lots and he was asked to be present personally with photo identity card on 24.06.2019. On 25.06.2019, he was informed that he has been declared as successful candidate for the selection of the Retail Outlet Dealership. He was further asked to deposit Rs.50,000/- for processing the application for award of Retail Outlet Dealership. On 04.10.2019, he was informed that the Land Evaluation Committee would visit the site offered on 10.10.2019. Thus, he was directed to be personally present along with photo identity card with all relevant documents on the said dates at the site. On 10.10.2019, though the petitioner was ready with all the documents, the site was not visited by the Land Evaluation Committee of the respondent-HPCL. On 11.10.2019, once again he got information that the Land Evaluation Committee would visit the site on 11.10.2019.

4. The further case of the petitioner is that he had purchased 2 katha 4 dhurs of land adjoining to the site offered by him on 16.08.2019 and the mutation of the same was done on 27.08.2019. The said land was acquired by him prior to the site visit of the Land Evaluation Committee. After the site visit was conducted by the Land Evaluation Committee, vide impugned letter dated 19.10.2019, he was informed that the site offered by him did not meet the required norms as the frontage of the offered plot was less than the required i.e. only 15 metre and that the other plots had been acquired by the sale deed dated 16.08.2019 which is not acceptable.

5. Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the land was acquired by the petitioner much prior to the visit of the Land Evaluation Committee of the respondent-HPCL and on the date of visit, the petitioner was fulfilling all the criteria of the respondent-HPCL. He submitted that vide impugned letter dated 19.10.2019, the petitioner has been declared ineligible illegally. He further contended that respondent-HPCL cannot be hyper technical in its approach and even the land acquired subsequent to the date of application ought to have been taken into consideration by the HPCL to be available for the site in question and on that ground the candidature of the petitioner could not have been rejected.

6. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent nos. 3 to 5 contending inter alia that as per the prevailing policy and guidelines for selection of Retail Outlet Dealership, the petitioner had submitted land supporting documents at the Regional Office of the HPCL