JUDGMENT :

HIMA KOHLI, J.

1. The appellant is aggrieved by an order dated 11.11.2020 passed by the learned Single Judge whereunder, I.A.No. 2 of 2020 filed by her in W.P.No. 18859 of 2020 has been dismissed and the earlier interim order passed on 21.10.2020 directing status quo in respect of allotment of the subject Retail Outlet (RO) for a period of two weeks, has been vacated.

2. Learned counsel for the appellant has drawn the attention of this Court to the letter dated 06.08.2020 issued by the respondent No. 2 to the appellant with reference to her application for awarding the RO dealership and calling upon her to furnish three documents on or before 26.08.2020. The appellant was cautioned that in case she fails to submit the three documents in question within the stipulated timeline, her candidature would be liable to be rejected without any further notice. Besides the above, the respondent No. 2 has also referred to the rectified documents submitted by the appellant in respect of the subject land offered by her and stated as follows:

“In case the rectified documents pertaining to the land offered are not submitted but other documents are submitted, your candidature may get considered for selection along with Group 3 applicants as per guidelines.”

3. It is the stand of learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant had submitted the rectified documents in respect of the land in question to the respondent No. 2 on the very next day i.e., 07.08.2020 and the respondent No. 2 had responded vide letter dated 07.08.2020, confirming inter alia that the appellant had submitted the required rectified documents and therefore, there was no occasion for the respondents to have rejected the candidature of the appellant on 03.09.2020 on the ground that they had not received the documents regarding the land offered by her within the stipulated timeline by referring to the date of the submission of the application. Learned counsel argues that the respondents have themselves afforded an opportunity to the appellant to submit the rectified documents relating to the land and in those circumstances, the status quo order operating in her favour ought to have been continued till the writ petition is finally decided.

4. Mr. Mayur Reddy, learned counsel for the respondents/HPCL disputes the aforesaid submission and seeks to rely on the Brochure for Selection of Dealers for Regular and Rural Retail Outlets dated 24.11.2018, filed at page No. 110. He refers to Clause 4 (v) which deals with the eligibility criteria for individual applicants, to urge that every applicant was required to ensure that as on the date of the application, the offered land is of the required dimension and if it is found at a later stage that the offered land does not meet the requirement, then the candidature of the applicant can be rejected only to be afforded an opportunity with the applicants falling under Group 3.

5. We have specifically enquired from learned counsel for the respondents to explain the background in which the letter dated 06.08.2020 was addressed to the appellant wherein, the respondent No. 2 has afforded an opportunity to the appellant to submit the rectified documents pertaining to the land, only to be told that even if the respondent No. 2 has erred in giving such an option to the appellant, the appellant’s application cannot be considered contrary to the terms and conditions of the Brochure.

6. We may note that the above aspect has yet to be finally adjudicated upon by the learned Single Judge, as the writ petition is still pending. In the above facts and circumstances, we are of the opinion that the appellant has been able to make out a prima facie case for continuation of the status quo order granted on 21.10.2020. As a result, the said order is restored and the present appeal is disposed of along with the pending applications, if any, with a request to the learned Single Judge to make an endeavour to dispose of the pending writ petition (W.P.No. 188