The court upheld the cancellation of the petitioner's LOI due to failure to meet ownership requirements as per tender rules, emphasizing fairness in the selection process.

ORDER :

D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.

This Writ Petition is filed for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to the impugned order passed by the 2^nd respondent vide order dated 28.03.2023 upholding the cancellation of the petitioner’s LOI in Ref.SRMP18/380/LOI Cancellation dated 06.01.2021 of the 2^nd respondent, quash the same and consequently direct the 2^nd respondent to award the petroleum retail outlet dealership at Vandavasi – Mambattu (on SH-115) Tiruvannamalai District, to the petitioner forthwith.

2. The factual background in which the Writ Petition arises is that the petitioner participated in the tender for selection of the licensees for a retail outlet located at the above mentioned place at Mambattu. The petitioner had duly submitted his application. The petitioner was selected being the highest bidder in Group-I. While, scrutinising the documents submitted by the petitioner in respect of the location of the outlet, it is seen that the petitioner had originally submitted a lease deed 24.12.2018, thereby getting the subject matter land on lease from J.Rajarajan and J.Shanmugam. It is seen that the said land originally belong to Janakiraman and apart from the said J.Rajarajan and Shanmugam there were four other legal heirs. By getting an affidavit from the four other legal heirs, originally the bid was submitted. On initial scrutiny, it was found that the petitioner’s lease deed did not even contain a provision to sub-lease it to the respondent organisation and therefore, the petitioner was directed to produce a rectification deed. Accordingly, the first rectification deed was produced by the petitioner. Thereafter, again when the matter was taken up for scrutiny, since it was pointed out by the respondents that the petitioner can only lawfully claim 2/6^th share, the petitioner again approached his lessors. The lessors in turn entered into a partition deed within the family members and the other legal heirs who have already given consent affidavit, have now relinquished their share under the partition deed and thereafter, a second rectification deed is executed in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner therefore, now trying to convince the authorities with the second rectification deed. The respondents initially considered the same, passed an order rejecting the claim.

3. The petitioner approached this Court by way of W.P.No.2557 of 2021 and this Court after considering the fact that no proper opportunity was given to the petitioner, directed the respondents to redo the entire exercise by giving full opportunity to the petitioner. Therefore, the matter was once again taken up by giving opportunity to the petitioner and now the impugned order dated 28.03.2023 is passed. The authority had taken into consideration that there is no provision for the petitioner to obtain a second rectification deed and present the document and on that score, held that the petitioner cannot be considered in Group – I, but if the turn comes, the petitioner will be considered along with Group – III as per the rules. Challenging the same, the present Writ Petition is filed.

4. Mr.A.Suresh Sakthi Murugan, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner would contend that firstly, it can be seen that this is not a case where the petitioner does not meet the requirements. The only finding is that the requirement was met after the date of submission of the application and during the course of the scrutiny of the application. The rules relating to submission of alternate land clearly contained in Note No.3 of the Indian Oil Corporation Limited's Brochure, which clearly entitle even to offer an alternate land. If that being the position, filing a rectification deed in respect of the original land would not disentitle the petitioner. Further, taking this Court through the Note No.4 especially sub-clause (iv), the learned counsel would rely upon the same to contend that firstly even if it require the consent of the oth