A notarized lease deed is legally ineffective; eligibility for a dealership requires a registered deed on the application date, according to statutory guidelines.

Judgment :

Sanjeeb K Panigrahi, J.

1. The Petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950, assailing the order of rejection dated 04.06.2024, whereby her option in respect of the second plot mentioned in the application for grant of Regular Retail Outlet (Petrol Pump) dealership was rejected for the location specified at Sl. No. 43 i.e., within 2km from IDBI Bank Branch, Sarmuhan towards Balangir on the LHS on SH-42 in the District of Balangir, pursuant to the Advertisement dated 28.06.2023 published in daily ‘Samaja’.

I. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE

2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:

(i) The Petitioner came across an Advertisement issued by Indian oil Corporation Ltd., inviting application for Regular/Rural Outlet (petrol pump dealership) for various locations, including one location situated within 2 km from IDBI Bank, Branch, Sarmuhan towards Balangir on the left-hand-side, as specified in the said advertisement.

(ii) The petitioner, belonging to the OBC category, was eligible to apply for the said dealership and accordingly prepared herself to submit the application. The last date to apply for submission of application under the said advertisement was 27.09.2023, which was subsequently extended to 17.10.2023.

(iii) The Petitioner owns land standing in the name of her father bearing the Khata No. 372/836, Plot No. 402, Survey No. 1976 of Mouza Bhainsa. However, as she intended to establish the petrol pump on the leased land, she was in search of suitable plot. During, such search, she came to know one Panchu Naik, belonging to the SC Category, owned land bearing Khata No. 172, Plot No. 404 in Mouza Bhainsa, and that he was willing to lease out the said plot due to the financialconstraints.

(iv) On 27.09.2023, the Petitioner, along with said Panchu Naik, approached the concerned Registering Authority, where they were informed that since the land owner belongs to SC Category and the Petitioner belongs to OBC Category, prior permission for execution of the lease was required from the Sub-Collector.

(v) On 16.08.2023, the Petitioner along with Panchu Naik approached the Sub-Collector seeking permission to lease out the plot in favour of the Petitioner, and in the said application, Panchu Naik specifically stated the reasons for leasing the land to the Petitioner.

(vi) On 25.09.2023, possession of the land was handed over to the Petitioner before a Notary Public, as obtaining permission from the Sub-Collector is a time-consuming process.

(vii) The last date for submission of application was 17.10.2023, and by that time the Sub-Collector has not granted permission. Consequently, the Petitioner submitted her application for the dealership on 16.10.2023, indicating both plots, namely Khata No. 372/836, Plot No. 402 and Khata No. 172, Plot No. 404.

(viii) On 0712.2023, the Opp. Party conducted the selection process, in which the Petitioner was duly selected. On 08.12.2023, a copy of the provisional selection in favour of the Petitioner was communicated to her.

(ix) After the provisional selection of the Petitioner, the Opp. Party intimated her to remit a sum of Rs. 40,000/- towards initial security deposit, to be deposited on or before 18.12.2023. Thereafter, on 14.12.2023, the Sub-Collector permission to lease out the land belonging to Panchu Naik, and on 15.12.2023, the lease deed was duly registered.

(x) Thereafter, the Opp. Party inspected the land offered by the Petitioner and rejected the same on the ground that the land was not abutting the road as prescribed in the Brochure. It was further rejected on the ground that the said land did