Adherence to the terms and conditions set by the Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. for awarding distributorships is mandatory, and misrepresentation of facts can justify rejection of candidature.

Rohit Arya, J.:-

1. Shri K.N. Gupta, Sr. Advocate with Shri C.P. Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.

Shri N.K. Jain, Sr. Advocate with Shri A.K. Jain, Advocate for the respondents No. 2 to 7.

By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenge is made to impugned communication dated 20-6-2014 by which respondent-Indian Oil Corporation Limited has rejected the application of the petitioner for award of LPG Distributorship at Gwalior-E, District Gwalior under "OP" category, advertised on 15-11-2011 on the premise that the petitioner does not possess suitable land for godown as per the eligibility criteria as the lease deed of the godown land declared by him was found to be invalid.

2. It is contended by the petitioner that as required under clause VI of the guidelines framed by the respondents and also as per clause 9 of the General Instructions to the candidates, the petitioner has submitted the lease deed. Lease deed in respect of land ad measuring 100 x 100 sq. ft. falling in Patwari Halka No. 23, Revenue Inspector Board Circle No. 1, Ghatigaon Development Board, Barai, Tahsil and District Gwalior executed in favour of plaintiff by one Bharat Singh on behalf of his minor son Kripal Singh dated 31-12-2011 is a validly executed lease deed fulfilling the requirement of IOCL.

3. It appears that respondents-Corporation has received a complaint as regards non-availability of land for godown with the petitioner. On verification of the lease deed submitted by the petitioner, it was brought to the notice of respondents-Corporation that on the date of lease deed i.e. 31-12-2011, Kripal Singh was major. The lease agreement was executed on 31-12-2011 by Bharat Singh as guardian stating that Kripal Singh as minor was found to be factually incorrect. Therefore, Bharat Singh was not competent to execute the lease deed. Resultantly, lease deed found to be null and void and consequently, the land for godown shown by the petitioner in his application form was not found to be fulfilling the required criteria. The aforesaid facts were brought to the notice of the petitioner vide communication dated 3-4-2014 (Annexure P/11) and an opportunity was afforded to him to submit representation on the aforesaid issue within seven days. It appears that same was replied on 4-4-2014 by the petitioner vide Annexure P/12 with the submissions that due to inadvertence, the lease deed was executed on 31-12-2011 by Bharat Singh father of Kripal Singh (minor). Now Kripal Singh is already major and ready to ratify the lease deed dated 31-12-2011 by making necessary amendments wherever it is required. Thus, the legal infirmity will be cured and the same shall not affect the lease deed dated 31-12-2011. With the aforesaid submissions, petitioner sought permission to submit rectification deed/amendment lease deed with removal of defects. Petitioner also submitted consent documents of Kripal Singh on non-judicial papers in support of aforesaid submissions, however, respondents-Corporation was not convinced with the aforesaid submissions and resolved to reject the candidature of the petitioner by the impugned communication.

4. Senior Counsel for the petitioner submitted that respondents/Corporation has acted arbitrarily having rejected the candidature on the premise that the lease deed dated 31-12-2011 was not legally tenable having been executed by Bharat Singh father of Kripal Singh (minor) which was on later date supplemented by a consent letter by Kripal Singh dated 15-4-2014. Learned counsel for the petitioner referred to meaning of "Own" as defined in guidelines clause vi issued by the respondents/corporation and submits that petitioner is covered with the definition of word "Own". He further submitted that even if Kripal Singh had attained majority on the date of execution of lease deed dated 31-12-2011, lease deed executed on the said date by his father styling Kripal Singh as minor inadvertently, in favour of petitioner, the same could