Ambiguity in an advertisement for petrol pump dealership cannot be used as a ground for re-advertisement, especially when it would affect all the retail outlets allotted under the same advertisement.

Sanjeev Prakash Sharma, J.

The petitioner Shiv Pal Baloda (hereinafter referred to as 'the SPB') is the applicant for allotment of retail outlet dealership (petrol pump) for one of the sites condition of 170 locations which were advertised by the Indian Oil in the State of Rajasthan at Khandela, Palsana Road within 4 kilometers of Doodh Walo Ka Bas. The advertisement published on 11.06.2005 mentions of appointment of retail outlet dealership in the State of Rajasthan at the locations mentioned or all around the said locations.

2. The SPB however was unable to secure the requisite merit in the interview conducted for the purpose of retail outlet and aggrieved of his placement and denial of marks on the ground of having land within 4 kilometers of Doodh Walo Ka Baas, filed the present writ petition with a prayer to direct the respondent-Indian Oil Authorities to award proper marks to him with regard to the land availability and to direct allotment of retail outlet in pursuance of the advertisement with all consequential benefits.

3. The counter writ petition has already been preferred by the candidates who claims to have been placed at No.1 in the merit for the purpose of allotment of the aforesaid retail outlet with the prayer that the respondents' decision dated 08.11.2006 to cancel the said advertisement for the said site and re-advertise the same be quashed and set-aside and he prays that he should be allotted and awarded the retail outlet.

4. As the issues are related in both the writ petitions No.8942/2007 filed by the SPB and 815/2007 preferred by the Ajeet Singh Shekhawat & Anr. (hereinafter referred to as 'the ASS and Anr.') are heard together and being decided by this common order.

5. Mr. Nikhil Simlote Advocate appearing for SPB, the petitioner in S.B.C.W.P. No.8942/2007 submits that the petitioner was in all counts eligible to be allowed the retail outlet and he therefore applied mentioning of having land situated in Khasra No.101 in his name as per the revenue record which was adjacent to the road namely Palsana within 4 kilometers of village Dhoodh Walo Ka Bas. Learned counsel supports his contention by referring to the certificate taken by the Tehsildar dated 07.04.2006 alongwith the map (Annexure-2) to the petition. It is his contention that the respondent wrongfully granted him zero marks with reference to the land by relying upon a circular of Public Works Department, dated 27.12.2004. It is submitted that the action of the respondents for outlet by reducing the land by 100 meters from the main road was totally unwarranted.

Further, his contention is that the placing of the another person i.e. the petitioners in the other writ petition ASS and his partner at No.1 in the merit, was also unjustified. It is submitted that the land owned by ASS was not within 4 kilometers of Village Doodh Walo Ka Bas and was situated at a distance of 5.6 kilometers from Village Doodh Walo Ka Bas and therefore he could not have been included. It is his submission that different yardsticks have been adopted for the purpose of allotment and selection of petrol pump dealership. Learned counsel further submits that on the complaint being made by him relating to aforesaid, the petitioner received information under Right to Information Act, 2005 on 02.05.2007 informing him that as per the PWD norms the minimum size of the plot required as 35x35 meter and in case of the petitioners' plot after leaving 100 meters distance from the road passing near the plot, the balance frontage which available does not meet the PWD norms and was thus not suitable. The land measuring was only 30 meters instead of 35 meters. It is contended that in absence of such condition in the advertisement the rejection was unjustified. He further submits that another communication was received from the Indian Oil Corporation on 18.01.2007 informing him that on his complaint investigation was conducted and in the investigation report, it was concluded that t