The presence of a High Tension line passing through the proposed land rendered it unsuitable for the establishment of a petrol pump, as per the guidelines outlined in the Brochure on Selection of Dealers for Regular and Rural Retail Outlets dated 24.11.2018.

JUDGMENT

Vinit Kumar Mathur, J. - Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the communication/E-mail dated 13.01.2020 (Annexure 10) passed by the respondent Nos. 1 & 2, whereby the petitioner's candidature was rejected on the report of the Land Evaluation Committee.

3. Brief facts of the case are that the Respondent-Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited (hereinafter referred to as the "BPCL") published an advertisement for dealerships of the petrol pumps to be issued in the urban areas and rural areas. The petitioner in furtherance of the advertisement dated 14.12.2018 applied for issuance of a petrol pump at location No. 127 in Village Gagrana, Tehsil Merta, District Nagaur. The petitioner's candidature was considered along with the other candidates and ultimately the petitioner was found eligible and was placed in Group-I category. The petitioner thereafter submitted all the requisite documents in furtherance of his candidature having been shortlisted in Group-I. The application of the petitioner was processed and in furtherance of the same, the Land Evaluation Committee (hereinafter referred to as "LEC") inspected the site of the petitioner on 10.01.2020. While the inspection was being done by the Land Evaluation Committee, it was found that a 33 KVA electric line is passing through the proposed petrol pump site and a report to that effect was prepared by the Land Evaluation Committee of the respondent-BPCL. The same was submitted to the higher authorities for consideration. Based on the report submitted by the Land Evaluation Committee, the candidature of the petitioner was rejected vide communication/E-mail dated 13.01.2020.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the validity of the same and submitted before this court that the candidature of the petitioner has wrongly been rejected as the 33 KVA electric line which was passing through the proposed site of the petrol pump of the petitioner was not charged as there was no flow of current on the day, it was inspected. He further submits that the petitioner has already taken up the case vide (Annexure-8) for shifting of such 33 KVA electric line from the proposed site of the petrol pump to some other place and the authorities concerned of the respondent No. 3-Ajmer Vidyut Vitram Nigam Limited have processed the case for shifting of the 33 KVA electric line. Learned counsel further submits that all those documents which the petitioner submitted before the officials of the Ajmer Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited were also supplied to the officers of the respondent-BPCL Corporation who visited the site. He assured the officers of the BPCL that before the operation of the petrol pump activities, the 33 KVA electric line will be shifted.

5. Learned counsel further submits that in furtherance of the application preferred by the petitioner, after the date of inspection by LEC the electric line has been shifted. He, therefore, submits that the rejection of the candidature of the petitioner on the report of the Land Evaluation Committee is, therefore, arbitrary and illegal. He, thus, prays that the writ petition may kindly be allowed and the respondent-BPCL may be directed to process the case of the petitioner for grant of petrol pump at the site inspected by the Land Evaluation Committee.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 & 2-BPCL vehemently submitted that the grant of dealership for the fuel outlet (diesel and petrol) is governed by the Brochure on Selection of Dealers for Regular and Rural Retail Outlets dated 24.11.2018. As per guideline No. 14-H, the LEC has to see the eligibility of the land offered by the candidate and if the same falls within the criteria laid down under Clause 14-H, the same is recommended for allotment. Learned counsel further submits that since the High Tension line was passing over the land proposed by the petitioner on the date of inspection, therefore, the land offered was not s