JUDGMENT :

1. Since both these writ petitions have been filed in respect of advertisement dated 20.09.2011 regarding allotment of dealership of retail outlet, and for the same outlet, therefore, the writ petitions are decided by a common order.

2. For the purpose of deciding the controversy, I deem it appropriate to first decide the controversy involved in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.10685/2012.

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.10685/2012

1. The instant writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with the following prayers:-

“I. by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the order dated 28.11.2012 (Anenxure-6) may kindly be declared illegal and be quashed and set aside, consequently the respondent be directed to issue Letter Of Intent in favour of the petitioner.

II. Any other appropriate order or direction, which this Hon’ble Court considers just and proper in the facts and circumstances of this case, may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner.

III. Costs of the writ petition may kindly be awarded to the petitioner.”

2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent issued an advertisement dated 20.09.2011, inviting applications for appointment of dealers of retail-outlets at various points, which was published in a tabular form of eleven columns on 21.09.2011 in ‘Rajasthan Patrika’ with various qualifications for eligibility of a person to apply for allotment of dealership of retail outlets and the controversy is involved with columns Nos.7A and 7B.

3. The Column 7A of the advertisement indicates that an applicant should have available with him approximate capital (excluding the cost of land) for development of necessary infrastructure on the compound of retail outlet whereas, column 7B prescribes the approximate liquid capital available with an applicant for the purpose of operating the retail outlet.

4. The retail outlet which was applied for by the petitioner was at Sr.No.151 in the said advertisement pertaining to NH-15 (Phalodi-Ramdeora Road) between km stone 187 to 191. The relevant column i.e. column No.7A mentioned that no such capital for development of infrastructure is required, however, as per column No.7B, the liquid capital approximately required for being eligible was Rs.21 lacs.

5. The Condition No.13 in the advertisement provided that where income/assets of the applicant is not in the sole ownership of the applicant and falls within the joint account or assets of the family, then the same shall be considered for evaluation only when a notarized affidavit denoting consent of such family members is filed along with the application and the application was considered for evaluation. The petitioner who was eligible for applying for allotment of dealership in terms of advertisement (Anenxure-1) applied for the same.

6. In column 2A of the liquid capital document (Annexure-3) and as per the details of the petitioner’s bank account, an amount of Rs.4,73,000/-was shown in the State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur, Branch Phalodi. Total liquid capital available in the case of petitioner was Rs.21,51,120/-which included the assets of the petitioner’s husband. In column 2A of Annexure-3, the petitioner has shown an amount of Rs.4,73,000/-as standing in her account and the said fact was verified by the copy of pass-book detailing the relevant entries which were showing entries till 17.10.2011.

7. On 20.10.2011, an amount of Rs.3,000/-was withdrawn from the said account by ATM transaction and after processing the application of the petitioner, she was invited for interview on 04.05.2012 and as a result whereof, she was declared ‘first’ in merit panel prepared for allotment of dealership.

8. The petitioner received a letter dated 28.11.2021 by post on 01.12.2012, intimating her that she has not been found eligible for issuance of Letter Of Intent, which further revealed that after the petitioner was declared ‘first’ in merit, and after an interview, a complaint was received by the res