JUDGMENT :

A.J. SHASTRI, J.

1. The present Letters Patent Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent is against the order dated 03.10.2019 passed by the learned Single Judge in the aforementioned petition.

2. The brief facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the appellant was selected for LPG Distributorship in the draw of lots conducted on 10.01.2019 which was held pursuant to the previous advertisement dated 13.11.2018. In response to the same, an application was submitted by the appellant with necessary details, along with Demand Draft dated 11.01.2019. It is the say of the appellant that along with an application, a registered lease deed has also been provided so as to ensure that adequate space is available for the purpose of godown, as well as shop. The said application was processed by the authorities, but the same could not find favour. The appellant has stated that a registered sale deed dated 16.08.2017 executed by the original owner namely Shri Mashrubhai Ranchhodbhai Makwana with respect to land bearing Survey No. 749 at Village Morthal, District : Surendranagar in favour of Shri Kumudchandra M. Dave and Shri Galabhai P. Damor. The lease deed was executed for a period of 17 years and in view of such situation, these two lessees i.e. Shri Kumudchandra M. Dave and Shri Galabhai P. Damor further executed lease with respect to land in question in favour of seven persons including father-in-law of the present appellant ­ petitioner who was named as Shri Naransinh Bhavansinh Chavada. The said lease deed was also registered. Though the requirement of the minimum lease period was fulfilled, according to the appellant, without any just reason, the authorities were not willing to consider the case. The appellant has clarified the situation by way of submitting further reply on 26.03.2019, but no reply was given by the authority. As a result of that, the appellant – petitioner requested the authority to consider the case. However, vide order dated 06.04.2018, request for grant of Distributorship came to be refused.

2.1 The appellant, therefore, had approached this Court by way of petition inter alia contending that the order in question is not only unjust and improper, but is also not in consonance with the relevant record which had been submitted. The appellant had submitted all these facts before the learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge vide order dated 03.10.2019 did not correctly consider the case of the appellant and dismissed the petition. As a result of this, the appellant left with no other alternative has preferred the present Letters Patent Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent before us.

3. Shri Prabhav Mehta, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has vehemently contended that the approach shown by the authority is too technical in nature. On the contrary, two lease deeds which were registered lease deeds have been provided and the lease tenure was also for a period of 17 years which was meeting the requirement of advertisement. As such there is clear illegality in the decision taken by the Authority and also the learned Single Judge. It has been vehemently contended that simplicitor typographical error which has reflected in subsequent lease deed has been given different dimension and the case of misrepresentation is wrongly made out. The learned Single Judge has not appreciated this mere typographical error. It has been further contended that the action on the part of the authority is not only unjust and arbitrary, but is a violation of the fundamental rights of the appellant and that being so, the learned Single Judge ought not to have passed the impugned order. Shri Mehta, learned counsel has further contended that the land was undisputedly leased out to the father-in-law of the appellant – petitioner along with other persons. The lease in the name of father-in-law is permitted and falling within the criteria laid down as one of the condition. That being so, when regi