Point of Law: The selection of the petitioner does not confer any right to a prospective candidate because no letter of intent has been issued by the respondents in pursuance of the selection and no agreement has been executed by the parties in response to above selection.

JUDGMENT :

Prakash Padia, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

2. Sri R.K. Jaiswal learned counsel has accepted notice on behalf of respondent no. 1 and Sri Vikas Budhwar, learned counsel has put his appearance on behalf of respondent nos. 2 and 3.

3. Sri Ghanshyam, Advocate, has filed an application for impleadment on behalf of newly added respondent Smt. Jyoti Yadav w/o Sri Prashant Kumar Yadav.

4. The petitioner has preferred the present writ petition challenging the order dated 09.07.2016 passed by the Chief Regional Manager, Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited, 85/4, Ispat Bhawan 3rd Floor, Sanjay Place, Agra/respondent no. 3 with further prayer to issue a mandamus commanding the respondents, specially respondent no. 3 to include the application of the petitioner in the forthcoming lottery draw for selection of retail outlet of Hindustan Petroleum Corporation for the location in question namely Faizabad Shamshabad Road KM. Stone between 2 and 4 District Farrukhabad under the OBC category.

5. Facts in brief as contained in the writ petition are that an advertisement was published by the respondent corporation on 13.10.2014 inviting applications from interested persons in respect of grant of retail outlet distributorship for various locations including the location in question.

6. It is contended in the writ petition that the petitioner is OBC category candidate. He applied on a prescribed form for the retail outlet in question. In this regard the petitioner had taken land on lease for a period of 30 years from one of the co-sharer of Khata No.356, Khasra No.202 area 0.9590 hectare situated in Village Khanpur, Pargana-shamshad, Tehsil Kayamganj, District Farrukhabad.

7. The application form submitted by the petitioner was duly examined by the respondent no.3/Chief Regional Manager, Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd.85/4, Ispat Bhawan, 3rd Floor, Sanjay Place, Agra, and he informed the petitioner that the candidatures of the petitioner was not found eligible for retail outlet dealership due to following reasons :

a. The Khasra/khatauni/gata no. is not mentioned in the lease deed of the offered land.

b. The lease agreement for the offered land does not contain sublease clause, on the contrary sublease is barred.

8. In the aforesaid letter it is further stated that if the petitioner has any grievance he can make an application/representation within 10 days from the date of the letter. It is further contended that the petitioner has submitted his representation on 4.6.2016. Along with the said representation the petitioner submitted the extract of Khatauni no.18020901052 of Khata No.356, Khasra No.202 area 0.9590 hectare situated in Village Khanpur, Pargana-shamshad, Tehsil Kayamganj, District Farrukhabad in the name of Smt. Munni Devi, Revenue Map of the said khata and land drawing map of proposed outlet. Apart from the same petitioner also submitted a supplementary/corrigendum of lease deed executed by Smt. Munni Devi in favour of petitioner, which was registered on 4.6.2016 in the office of Sub Registrar, Kayamganj.

9. In view of the aforesaid it is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has already removed all the shortcoming, which were very minor in nature and as such petitioner became entitled for consideration of his application form for the grant of retail outlet in question.

10. The representation submitted by the petitioner was rejected by the respondent no.3 vide its order dated 09.7.2016. By the aforesaid order, the petitioner was informed that since he does not fulfill the norms for providing land in accordance with the Point No.4(vi) (kha) of the Dealer Selection Guidelines thus his application cannot be accepted. The order dated 9.7.2016 passed by the respondent no.3 is under challenge in the present writ petition.

11. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that in response