The condition in the Guidelines requiring consent in form of declaration by all co-sharers of the land is mandatory and failure to procure the same would result in cancellation of candidature.

Sandeep Mehta, J.

The matter is today listed for orders on an application preferred by Shri Vinay Kothari, learned counsel representing the respondent BPCL under Article 226(3) of the Constitution of India for vacating the ad interim stay order dated 18.06.2018 passed by this Court in favour of the petitioner.

2. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the writ petition is being heard and decided finally today and thus, the application under Article 226(3) of the Constitution of India is dismissed as infructuous.

3. Brief facts relevant and essential for disposal of the writ petition are that the petitioner herein, applied for allotment of LPG Distributorship for the village Raas, Tehsil Jaitaran, District Pali in furtherance of the advertisement dated 23.08.2017 floated by the respondent Corporation. While applying for the dealership in question, the petitioner provided the details a plot of land acquired by him through a lease deed executed by one Smt. Bhanwari Devi wife of Shyam Lal which was a joint khatedari land falling in Khasra No.1341, Patan Road, Raas, Tehsil Jaitaran as the site for the proposed godown of showroom. The petitioner was declared entitled for the gas agency in question on the basis of evaluation of marks. However, when the field verification proceedings of the land were undertaken by the respondents, it came to light that the particular land offered by the petitioner which he claimed to have taken on lease had not been demarcated and that "no objection certificates" of the other khatedars of the land in question were not submitted by the petitioner. Thereupon, the respondent Corporation issued the order (Annexure-14) dated 10.05.2018 whereby, the candidature of the petitioner was cancelled as not being compliant with the selection guidelines and the security amount of Rs. 20,000/- deposited by the petitioner was forfeited. The said order is assailed in this writ petition filed by the petitioner Pradeep Kumar under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

4. Shri R.S. Choudhary, learned counsel representing the petitioner, vehemently and fervently urged that till the time the field verification proceedings were undertaken, the petitioner was not aware of the judgment-cum-decree dated 17.09.1996 issued by the SDM, Jaitaran whereby, the land in question had been partitioned amongst the various khatedars/ shareholders. He further drew the Court's attention to the Mauka report dated 08.02.2018 prepared by the Patwari under the directions of the Tehsildar and tried to buttress that the share of the land as acquired by the petitioner by way of lease deed executed by Smt. Bhanwari Devi wife of Shyam Lal was clearly demarcated. He thus urged that the respondents were totally unjustified in drawing a conclusion that the leased land offered by the petitioner for setting up of the godown and showroom was not compliant with the guidelines. He further urged that the respondents should have given an opportunity to the petitioner to provide alternative land in accordance with the guidelines before taking the drastic action of cancellation of candidature which has severely prejudiced the petitioner who is an Ex-serviceman belonging to the Scheduled caste category. He thus implored the Court to exercise its extraordinary writ jurisdiction and quash the impugned order as being grossly arbitrary and illegal.

5. Per contra, Shri Vinay Kothari, learned counsel representing the respondent BPCL, drew the Court's attention to the condition No.1(w) of the Guidelines for Selection of Dealership and urged that the said condition unequivocally postulates that when leased land owned by numerous co-sharers is offered by an applicant for the showroom and the godown, no objection certificate of all the co-sharers is quintessential for the land offered to be treated valid. He drew the Court's attention to the proceedings of meetings held inter-se between company officials and the petitioner more particularly, the le