JUDGMENT :

ARUN BHANSALI, J.

1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 14/9/2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in S.B.Civil Writ Petition No. 872/20, whereby, the writ petition filed by the appellant-petitioner has been dismissed.

2. The writ petition was filed by the appellant-petitioner aggrieved of the communication/email dated 13/1/2020, whereby, the candidature of the petitioner for award of RO Dealership at Village Gagrana, Tehsil – Merta, District Nagaur under open category advertised on 14/12/2018 was found ineligible. It was indicated that his candidature may get considered for selection along with Group 3 applicants as per guidelines.

3. Further directions were sought to the respondents to issue LOI for retail outlet dealership and a restraint from allotting the location to any other person.

4. It was inter alia indicated in the petition that the respondent Corporation published an advertisement dated 14/12/2018 for various sites including the location in question. The appellant-petitioner applied on 11/1/2019 and his candidature was considered along with other candidates. By communication dated 16/7/2019, the appellant was informed that he was declared as successful in the draw of lots conducted on 15/7/2019 for selection of RO dealership at the said location. The appellant-petitioner was informed about the further requirements of deposit of initial security deposit, submission of set of documents as specified for processing the application.

5. On 16/12/2019, the appellant-petitioner was informed that the Corporation’s Land Evaluation Committee (‘LEC’) shall visit the site offered by him at the subject location for its inspection and he was requested to remain present personally at the site on 11/1/2020 along with relevant land documents. The appellant sought preponement of date of inspection from 11/1/2020 to 10/1/2020. The LEC inspected the site of the appellant-petitioner on 10/1/2020 and when it inter alia found that 33 KVA HT line was passing through the proposed retail outlet site, a report to that effect was prepared by the LEC, and the same was submitted to the higher authority for consideration. Based on the report submitted, the candidature of the appellant-petitioner was rejected vide communication/email dated 13/1/2020 (order impugned) inter alia informing the appellant that LEC found that the land offered did not meet the requirement norms as 33 KVA HT line was passing through the offered land and as noticed, it was informed that his candidature has been found ineligible and that the same may get considered along with Group 3 applicants as per the guidelines.

6. Feeling aggrieved, a writ petition was filed inter alia with the submissions that 33 KVA HT line, which was passing through the proposed site was not charged as there was no flow of current on the day it was inspected. It was further submitted that the appellant-petitioner had already taken up the case for shifting of the line from the proposed site and the authority concerned of the AVVNL had processed the case for shifting of the 33 KVA HT line and all the documents in this regard were submitted to the LEC. Further, during pendency of the petition, on 3/2/2020 the line in fact came to be shifted by AVVNL. A further plea was raised in the writ petition that in similar circumstances of allotment of gas agency, wherein, the godown was situated near 33 KVA electric line, the applicant therein was given 14 days’ time for removal of the line, which was denied to the appellant-petitioner.

7. The plea raised was contested by the respondent Corporation with the submissions that in terms of the brochure containing guidelines for selection of dealers for regular and rural retail outlet issued by the petroleum companies, the relevant date, as per Clause 14-H, is the date of visit of LEC, which inter alia evaluates the land for suitability on the parameters, which includes the fact that land does not have HT Line (>11 KVA) crossing and it is specific