Point of Law: recording of reason is an essential feature of dispensation of justice. A litigant, who approaches the Court with a grievance in accordance with law, is entitled to know the reason for grant or rejection of his prayer. An administrative order without reasons causes prejudice to the person against whom it is pronounced, as that litigant is unable to know the ground which weighed with the Authority in rejecting his claim and also causes impediments in his taking adequate and appropriate grounds before the higher Court in the event of challenge to that administrative order.

JUDGMENT :

Piyush Agrawal, J.

1. We have heard Shri Vinayak Mithal, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Pramod Kumar Rai, learned counsel for the respondent - Corporation.

2. The present writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 23.06.2020, by which the petitioner’s candidature for retail outlet dealership under the OBC category has been rejected.

3. The brief facts of the case are that on 25.11.2018, an advertisement was issued inviting applications for appointment of Regular/Rural retail Outlet (Petrol Pump) Dealership in the State of U.P. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner applied for the retail outlet dealership in respect of “between km. Stone 18 to 23 on State Highway - 87, Varansi - Bhadohi Road” at serial no. 1023 of the advertisement, which was reserved for Other Backward Class (OBC) category. The minimum dimensions of the land required for aforesaid retail outlet dealership were mentioned as 35 meters (frontage) X 35 meters (depth). Thereafter, on 24.12.2018, the petitioner submitted online application form for the aforesaid retail outlet dealership, along with non-refundable application fee under the OBC category. The land offered by the petitioner was taken on lease from its owner for a period of 19 years & 11 months by means of a registered lease deed executed on 24.12.2018.

However, due to inadvertent mistake, the dimensions of the plot of land were wrongly recorded as 110 feet (33.528 meters) X 130 feet (39.624 meters), instead of 116 feet (35.35 meters) X 123.3 feet (37.56 meters).

4. The petitioner’s application was rejected by the impugned order dated 23.06.2020 on the ground that the lease deed, submitted along with the application form, does not qualify the minimum land required for the retail outlet dealership.

5. Shri Vinayak Mithal, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that after completing due formalities, the petitioner submitted online application on 24.12.2018 under the OBC category, along with all relevant documents. He further submits that the land was taken on lease for a period of 19 years & 11 months by way of a registered lease deed executed on 24.12.2018, but inadvertently, the dimensions in the lease deed executed on 24.12.2018 was wrongly mentioned and after coming to the knowledge of the same, a rectification lease deed (Titimma) was executed by the land owner in favour of the petitioner on 01.02.2019. Shri Mithal further submits that the dimensions of the land offered by the petitioner were 116 feet (35.35 meters) X 123.3 feet (37.56 meters) which is larger than the minimum requirement of land for the retail outlet dealership. It is further argued that the petitioner has not made any alteration in the boundaries mentioned in the original lease deed or any addition/deletion of any kind. The only dimensions, which were wrongly mentioned in the lease deed was rectified and therefore, the execution of the rectification deed would relate back to the date of execution of the original lease deed. Hence, the aforesaid land offered by the petitioner for establishment of retail outlet fulfils the parameters as mentioned in the brochure for qualifying the eligibility criteria for individual applicant. It is further argued that the petitioner was selected in the draw of lots for the location mentioned at serial no. 1023 of the advertisement. The petitioner was also directed to deposit a sum of Rs. 40,000/-towards initial security deposit and submit all documents for scrutiny. On 17.10.2019, the petitioner, after depositing the initial security deposit, submitted all documents for necessary verification. He also submitted the original lease deed dated 24.12.2018 as well as the rectification lease deed dated 01.02.2019, along with all other documents for verification.

6. Shri Mithal submits that the impugned order has been passed in a mechanical way as neither any reason has been assigned for not looking into the rectification lease deed, which relate back to the execute of the origin