JUDGMENT

Heard learned counsel for the parties through video conferencing.

2. By means of this writ petition, petitioner has sought the following reliefs:-

(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari calling for the records and quashing the order dated 30.01.2020 (annexure no.10 to the writ petition).

(ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent authorities to cancel the selection of the respondent no.4 for the aforesaid dealership and to further initiate the process for the selection of dealership, amongst other persons, who have duly been qualified, otherwise.

3. Petitioner had applied for appointment as rural retail dealer pursuant to an advertisement issued by Indian Oil Corporation Limited. Selection for appointment was to be made by draw of lots. Draw of lots was held on 23.07.2019, in which petitioner also participated, however, he was declared unsuccessful and respondent no. 4 was declared to be successful.

4. Feeling aggrieved by selection of respondent no. 4 for appointment as rural retail dealer, petitioner made a complaint to the Grievance Redressal Authority. His complaint has been rejected by the Competent Authority vide order dated 30.01.2020, which is under challenge in the present writ petition.

5. Petitioner has challenged selection of respondent no. 4 only on the ground that the land offered by respondent no. 4 for setting up the retail outlet has been taken on lease while as per provisions of Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act, 1950, agricultural land cannot be let out by a Bhumidhar/tenure holder.

6. Heard learned counsel for the parties through video conferencing and perused the record.

7. The rejection order impugned in this writ petition is Annexure No. 10. The issues raised by petitioner in his complaint have been reproduced in the rejection order, which are as follows:

“1. The offered land of Khasra Number 305, Village-Rahmatpur Mustehkam is taken on lease by applicant Sh Anil Kumar S/o Shri Arjun Dev from Sh Chandrashekhar, the offered land of Khasra no.305 is an Agricultural land and it's conversion in non agricultural land from competent authority is not obtained as per clause 143 before offering this land for Retails outlet. So lease deed of this agricultural land for Retail outlet and offering this agricultural land for Retail outlet is illegal.

2. A HT line of 11000 Voltage is passing over proposed land of Khasra no. 305 and there is possibility of accident due to this.

3. The boundaries are wrongly mentioned in proposed land lease deed of Khasra no. 305. There is no road in Khasra no. 305 as per revenue records."

8. The aforesaid issues have been considered and discussed in page no. 2 of the rejection order, which are as follows:

“1. In regard to offering of agriculture land or by the selected applicant, as per dealership selection guidelines dated 24.11.18, the land conversion as per clause no. 143 is not an eligibility criteria.

2. In regards to passing 11 KVA electric line over the offered land by selected candidate, as per the dealership selection guidelines land has no HT line>11 KVA crossing from the land.

3. In regards to wrong boundaries mentioned in lease deed of proposed land in Khasra no. 305 offered by applicant, the issue is verified and found that the boundaries are wrongly mentioned in submitted land lease deed; there is no road adjoining to offered land (West side) in Khasra no. 305 as per revenue records. However, eligibility of the applicant with the above deviation is not to be affected as this can be rectified at later stage.

4. As per the dealership selection guidelines, land selection is done on the following parameters and the offered site conforms to the norms.

a) Land in advertised area/stretch.

b) Land dimension minimum as per advertisement.

c) Meet NHAI norms*

d) Land has no HT line (>11 KVA) crossing.

*Parameter on S. No. “C" i.e. Meet NHAI norms was not checked, as advertised location Mahmudpur Mafi,