The main legal point established in the judgment is that an establishment has the power to correct its decision, including the cancellation of candidature, based on valid reasons such as land qualification issues, and the participation of the affected party in the reconsideration process does not invalidate the establishment's decision.

JUDGMENT :

1. This writ petition involves the following prayer:-

“It is therefore prayed that your Lordship’s would be graciously pleased to admit this writ petition, call for records, after hearing the parties issue writ/writs in the nature of certiorari/mandamus or any other writ/directions issuing Rule NISI calling upon the Opp. Parties to show cause as to why order dtd.20.01.2020 passed by the Opp. Party No.2 cancelling the candidature of the petitioner vide order dtd.20.01.2020 under Annexure-10, placing him in Group-3 instead of Group-1 and placing the Opp.Party No.4 in Group-1 instead of Group-3, shall not be quashed and as to why direction shall not be given to Opp.Party No.2 to allot the retail outlet dealership for Baramba of Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd to the petitioner. If the Opp.Parties do not show cause or show insufficient cause the Rule NISI be made absolute, considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances.

And pass any order/orders direction/directions and writ/writs as this Hon’ble Court thinks fit and proper.”

2. Background involved in this case is that the writ petition involves a challenge to the order at Annexure-10. As per the submission of the learned counsel for Petitioner reading together with the plea in the writ petition, the Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. hereinafter in short be reflected as “the BPCL” published notice on 25.11.2018 for appointment of regular/rural retail outlet Petrol Pump Dealer at various locations in the State of Odisha vide Annexure-1 & the broucher therein at Annexure-2. Pursuant to such notification the Petitioner finding himself to be suitable for applying for the particular area at Sl.No.493 of the Advertisement vide Annexure-3 applied as against the regular and rural retail outlets vide Sl.No.493.

3. Taking this Court to the required criteria therein Mr. Mohapatra, learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that the application of the Petitioner was made on 07.12.2018 along with requisite documents vide Annexure-4. It is claimed that the Opposite Party No.4 had also applied as against the same retail outlet following advertisement at Annexure-1. It is claimed that both the applicants were asked to attend the Office of the Opposite Party-Corporation at Lwis Road on 15.02.2019 at 9.30 A.M. to participate in the lottery required to be held for the said purpose. But the date was subsequently postponed to 26.02.2019, on which date the lottery could not be held and thereafter it was postponed to 12.03.2019. There was another postponement of the lottery to 19.06.2019. Mr. Mohapatra, learned counsel for the Petitioner through the pleadings in paragraph no.8 claimed that the Petitioner was declared to have been selected in the selection process through the publication on 19.06.2019 vide Annexure-5. It is alleged that while the matter stood thus even after such selection through a lottery process, there was no raising of objection on eligibility of the Petitioner and the Petitioner found qualified and the Opposite Party No.4 becoming unsuccessful filed complaint before the BPCL making an allegation that the land of the Petitioner does not lie within one K.M. from Narayan Chandra Hata towards Sunapala Chhaka on the right hand side of S.H-65. It appears, after such complaint is received the Petitioner was asked to produce report of the Tahasildar showing that his land fulfills the requirement as per the advertisement. It is claimed that on the basis of request of the Petitioner to the concerned Tahasildar, the Tahasildar vide its letter No.2157 dated 5.09.2019 categorically informed that the land of the Petitioner falls within one K.M. from Narayan Chandra Hata towards Sunapala Chhaka and is also situated to the right hand side of the State Highway 65. Such report was submitted before the BPCL authorities for their further consideration. Mr. Mohapatra, learned counsel fo