IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that compliance with specific eligibility criteria, including land ownership and dimensions, is essential for the approval of LPG distributorship applications, and that subsequent grounds for rejection can be introduced if they arise from the applicant's own representations.

JUDGMENT

K.R. Mohapatra, J.

This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

2. Letters dated 13th February, 2013 (Annexure-5), 14th May, 2014 (Annexure5/A) and notice dated 7th June, 2014(Annexure-5/C) issued by the Bharat petroleum Corporation Limited (for short 'BPCL') are under challenge in this writ petition.

3. Mr. Mishra, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the Petitioner submits that pursuant to an Advertisement dated 25th March, 2012 (Annexure-1) issued jointly by BPCL and Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited (HPCL), the Petitioner applied for being appointed as a Distributor of LPG in the district of Nayagarh. A lottery was drawn on 10th March, 2012 and the Petitioner was found qualified. Thereafter land offered by the Petitioner for construction of godown/show room was inspected by the Assistant Managers (Sales) of BPCL physically and he found that the same found to be not suitable as it ad-measured 28 mt. x 22 mt. in dimension as against the minimum required dimension of 26.15 mt. x 27 mt. No assistance of any revenue staff was, however, taken for measurement of the land.

4. Vide letter dated 13th February, 2013 (Annexure-5), the Petitioner was intimated about rejection of his candidature on the ground that the land offered by him did not meet the required dimension for running the distributorship of LPG.

5. Assailing the order under Annexure-5, the Petitioner filed the present writ petition. Considering the case of the Petitioner, notices were issued vide order dated 12th March, 2013 and an interim order was passed in Misc. Case No.4053 of 2013 directing that any selection made with regard to LPG distributorship of BPCL pursuant to Annexure-1 would be subject to the result of the writ petition. The interim order is continuing till date.

6. Subsequent to the rejection of his candidature, the Petitioner submitted a Representation on 16th February, 2013 [Annexure-5(1)] indicating that the dimension of the land is sufficient to run the LPG distributorship. He also requested for fresh consideration of his candidature. However, letter dated 14th May, 2014 (Annexure-5/A) was issued rejecting his representation as well as candidature on a completely different ground stating that the offered land did not fulfill the ownership norms and is also not freely accessible through all weather motorable road.

7. It is his submission that in spite of the aforesaid interim order, the letter/order under Annexure-5/A was issued by the BPCL during pendency of the writ petition. The authority cannot supplement the ground of rejection of candidature of the Petitioner under Annnexure-5 by any other ground in the subsequent order, i.e., under Annexure-5/A.

8. He further submits that the Petitioner had offered Plot Nos.667 and 666/2936 of Khata No.674/25 situated in mouza Khuntubandha under Nayagarh Tahasil in the district of Nayagarh (Annexure-2). The Petitioner also offered Plot No.122/2821 under the said Khata. On field verification, the land offered by the Petitioner was allegedly found to be insufficient to run the distributorship. But, letter under Annexure-5/A was issued on a totally different ground stating that although the dimension of the land offered by the Petitioner, i.e.,30 X 28 Mts. is sufficient, but share of the Petitioner in the land offered is not sufficient to meet the minimum dimension required. It was also observed therein that the land is not accessible with all-weather motorable road. In the Advertisement, it was stated that the minimum requirement of the land for running the distributorship is 26.15 Mts. X 27 Mts. Thus, the land offered by the Petitioner was confirming the dimension required in the advertisement. The Petitioner had also submitted affidavit of the co-sharers regarding the family settlement allotting the land offered in favour of the father of the Petitioner.

9. Be that as it may, the letter of rejection under Annexure-5 did not spell a single word regarding ownership of the land, but the subsequent letter of