ORDER :

1. The matter comes up on the second stay application; however, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the writ petition was heard finally.

2. The present writ petition has been preferred claiming the following reliefs:-

“A. By appropriate writ, order, direction, the impugned rejection of allotment of retail outlet to the petitioner vide e-mail dated 16th June, 2023 may kindly be quashed and set aside.

B. By appropriate writ, order, direction, respondent no. 1 i.e. IOCL may be directed to issue Letter of Intent (LOI) to the petitioner.

C. By appropriate writ, order, direction, respondents may be directed to adopt fair procedure for granting No Objection Certificates (NOCs) and Letters regarding establishment of Petrol Pump i.e. Retail Outlet..”

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn attention of this Court towards Annexure-A10 where the reason of rejecting the petitioner’s application for the retailership outlet was 11kv line alongwith the situational disqualification. He further submits that the petitioner shall remove the 11kv line as soon as the allotment is made and the condition is also an unreasonable.

4. Learned counsel for the respondent has referred to the judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Hon’ble Court in the case of Virendra Singh Rathore Vs. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited (D.B. Special Appeal Writ No.827/2022) decided on 31.05.2023, in which, the Hon’ble Division Bench is clearly held that even if the lines were to be removed subsequently then also the time could not have been given. The operation portion of which reads as follows:-

“22. We have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record.

23. It may be noticed that during the pendency of the present appeal, on account of various pleas raised by the parties, by order dated 8/12/2022, a coordinate bench of this Court directed AVVNL to file affidavit clearly indicating whether any 33 KVA HT line was existing over the land in question on 14/12/2018 or 11/1/2019 and whether the said line was active on 10/1/2020. Pursuant thereof, an affidavit has been filed by AVVNL inter alia indicating that on 14/12/2018 or 11/1/2019, 33 KVA HT line was not existing over the land in question i.e. Khasra No. 2423. 33 KVA HT Line was installed in May, 2019 over the land in question and that the said 33 KVA HT line was active on 10/1/2020 and was charged.

24. As noticed herein-before, the initial plea raised by the appellant-petitioner in the writ petition was that on the date of inspection the line in question was not charged and, therefore, the same could not have been termed as a 33 KVA HT line so as to reject the candidature of the petitioner. The said plea, was apparently incorrect in view of the affidavit filed by AVVNL inter alia indicating that the 33 KVA HT line was installed in May, 2019 and was active on 10/1/2020 and was charged.

25. Further, the plea raised regarding time granted for removal of 33 KVA HT Line from near a godown, which in fact formed basis for the learned Single Judge to grant interim order, also has been found to be without any basis.

26. Relevant provision in the brochure, as noticed by the learned Single Judge inter alia reads as under:

“H. Land Evaluation:

The concerned Divisional/Regional/Territory Office shall inform the selected candidate thru e-mail/SMS at least 10 days before the day of visit by LEC for site evaluation. In case of no response/non-availability of the selected applicant, the candidature shall be cancelled under intimation to the selected candidate through SMS/e-mail.

Evaluation of the offered land will be carried out to ascertain land being in advertised area and suitable for development of RO – meeting norms. The parameters under which land will be evaluated by Land Evaluation Committee for suitability are:-

? Land in advertised area / stretch

? Land dimensions as per requirement

? Land meets NHAI norms (for sites on NH)

? Land has