JUDGMENT :

1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition, praying for issuance of a direction to the respondent-Corporation to allot him a Retail Outlet Dealership, in the location “within 2 kilometers of village Thana Kalan on Una to Bangana Road (New NH-503A)”. He has also prayed for quashing of Annexure P-10, dated 17.06.2019. The case of the petitioner is that vide advertisement dated 25.11.2008, applications were invited by the respondent-Corporation for allotment of Retail Outlet Dealership and one such dealership was advertised to be allotted “within 2 kilometers of village Thana Kalan on Una to Bangana Road (New NH-503A)”. This Retail Outlet Dealership was to be allotted in favour of a person belonging to Scheduled Caste Category. Petitioner being eligible for allotment of this dealership, submitted his application online, on 12.12.2008. At the relevant time, he was possessing land on lease, measuring 00-16-71 hectares (4 Kanal 7 Marlas), i.e. more than the requirement of respondent-Corporation. Respondents vide communication dated 25.01.2019 informed the petitioner that he had qualified for Draw of Lots for selection qua the allotment of Retail Outlet Dealership and was called upon to be present for the Draw of Lots.

2. In the Draw of Lots, the petitioner was declared as the successful candidate in terms of Annexure P-4, i.e. communication dated 06.02.2019. Petitioner complied with the formalities, he was called upon to meet with and was informed by the respondents vide communication dated 22.05.2019 (Annexure P-5) that the Land Evaluation Committee will visit the site on 31.05.2019.

3. This date was preponed to 23.05.2019 and on the said date, the Committee found the land offered by the petitioner to be in conformity with the requirements of the respondent-Corporation.

4. The grievance of the petitioner is that vide Anneuxre P-10, dated 17.06.2019, he was conveyed that the Land Evaluation Committee which visited the site on 23.05.2019, has found the site offered by the petitioner not as per the required norms, therefore, the petitioner was not found eligible for allotment of dealership.

5. According to the petitioner, Annexure P-10 does not contains any reason as to why his candidature was cancelled and otherwise also the arbitrary cancellation of the candidature of the petitioner is not sustainable in law. According to him, he being fully eligible for being allotted the Retail Outlet Dealership has been wrongly held to be ineligible for the allotment of the same. It is in this background, he has approached the Court with the prayers already enumerated hereinabove.

6. The petition is resisted by the respondent-Corporation, inter aila, on the ground that the location offered by the petitioner falls on MDR-84, as was found during the land survey conducted by the Land Evaluation Committee, and the same was not in terms of the advertisement i.e. within 2 kilometers of village Thana Kalan on Una to Bangana Road (New NH-503A), district Una. According to respondent-Corporation, since the offered land by petitioner was not as per the terms of the advertisement and within the advertised stretch, therefore, his candidature was rightly rejected. It is also the stand of respondent-Corporation that the report of the Land Evaluation Committee was duly acknowledged by the applicant who has signed the same, Copy thereof stands appended with the reply as Annexure R1/1.

7. By way of rejoinder, the petitioner has reiterated his stand and in response to the contention of the respondent-Corporation that the land does not falls within the advertised stretch, the petitioner has stated that the land offered by him was within the parameters laid down by the respondents in village Thana Kalan on Una to Bangana Road.

8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the pleadings minutely.

9. During the course of hearing of this writ petition, this Court had directed respondent-Corporation to produce the original record pertai