Eligibility for dealership depends on submitting all co-owners' lease deeds as per Brochure Clause; a preliminary decree is insufficient without a final decree.

JUDGMENT :

NEERAJ TIWARI, J.

1. Heard Shri Nitin Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Anand Tiwari, learned counsel for the respondents.

2. Present petition has been filed seeking following relief:-

"(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the Order dated 28.06.2024 (Annexure No. 1 of the writ petition), passed by respondent no 2 & Order dated 15.04.2024 (Annexure No. 2 of the writ petition) passed by Respondent No. 2, rejecting the candidature of the Petitioner for selection of dealership of retail outlet in pursuance of advertisement dated 28.06.2023.

(ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to accept the piece of land/plot situated at Village Mubarakpur Hardas, Tehsil Najibabad, District Bijnor (duly enumerated in the lease deed dated 25.07.2023) offered by the petitioner for establishment of retail outlet.

(iii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to issue letter of Intent and letter of agreement in favour of the petitioner, in pursuance of the provisional selection letter dated 08.12.2023 within the stipulated time period as fixed by the Hon'ble Court. "

3. Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the respondent no.1-Indian Oil Corporation Limited (hereinafter referred to as the "Oil Corporation") has issued an advertisement dated 28.06.2023 inviting application for setting up a retail outlet dealership at location, namely, village Mubarkhpur, Hardas Tehsil Najibabad, District Bijnor. Pursuant to said advertisement, petitioner submitted an application fulfilling all the requisite qualifications on 16.10.2023. After considering the application of the petitioner, it was rejected on 15.04.2024 on the ground that alongwith the application, petitioner has not annexed the lease deed of all the co-sharers of the land, so offered. Against the same, petitioner has also preferred representation, which was also rejected by the respondent no.2 vide order dated 28.06.2024 on the same ground. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the site in question is situated in the part of land of Bhism Singh and as such, the petitioner had got the lease deed executed in its favour by Bhism Singh only. Thereafter, Bhism Singh has filed partition suit No. 3786 of 2023 under Section 116 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as Code, 2006) and a preliminary decree dated 23.09.2023 was prepared. He further submitted that petitioner has submitted the application for allotment of retail outlet dealership in the State of Uttar Pradesh on 16.10.2023 along with preliminary decree dated 23.09.2023, that decree was confirmed vide order dated 15.02.2024 passed by Sub Divisional Magistrate(Tehsil level) Judicial, Mandal Moradabad, Najibabad in Case No. 3786 of 2023(Bhism Singh Vs. Hemraj and Others). Final decree was put in force with effect from 23.09.2023 and defect has now been cured prior to date of application , therefore, rejection of the petitioner's application is bad and is not sustainable in the eye of law.

4. Per contra, Shri Anand Tiwari, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that Clause 4(vi) (a) of the Brochure of selection of retail outlet dealership is very clear, which provides that on the date of filing of the application, lease deed of every co-sharer