2024 Supreme(Online)(ALL) 89
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Birla,J. and Hon'ble Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi,J.
Aditya Vikram Yadav – Appellant
Versus
Union Of India And 2 Others – Respondent
WRIT - C No. - 10709 of 2024 at Allahabad
Advocates:
Petitioner: Ashish Rai , Pawan Giri and Rishabh Srivastava
Respondent: A.S.G.I. , Gaurav Kumar Chand and Santosh Kumar Singh
Eligibility for retail outlet dealership requires a lease executed by all co-owners of the land, and non-compliance renders the application invalid.
Headnote:(A) Dealer Selection Guidelines, 2023 - Clause 4(vi)(a) - Writ petition challenging cancellation of candidature for Retail Outlet Dealership - Petitioner declared ineligible due to lack of lease executed by all co-owners of the land - Court upheld the decision, emphasizing the necessity of compliance with guidelines. (Paras 6, 9, 12)
(B) Eligibility Criteria - Requirement for all co-owners to execute lease deed for land offered - Non-compliance results in application being treated as invalid. (Paras 8, 10, 11)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner applied for a Retail Outlet Dealership and was provisionally selected but later declared ineligible due to the lease not being executed by all co-owners of the land.
Findings of Court:
The petitioner did not meet the eligibility criteria as per the Dealer Selection Guidelines, leading to the rejection of his application.
Issues: The main issues were whether the petitioner’s lease was valid under the guidelines and if the rejection of his candidature was justified.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the lease must be executed by all co-owners for eligibility, and the petitioner’s application was invalid due to non-compliance with this requirement.
Result: Writ petition dismissed.
Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Birla, J. Hon'ble Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi, J. (Per: Hon’ble Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi,J.)
1. Heard Sri Pawan Giri along with Sri Rishabh Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner; Sri Gaurav Kant Chand, learned counsel appearing for the Union of India and Sri Puneet Agarwal, learned counsel for respondent nos. 2 and 3.
2. By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:
“I. Issue a writ, order, or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 01.03.2024 (Annexure no.1) passed by the respondent no.3, wherein the respondent no.3 has declared the Petitioner ineligible and also cancelled the candidature of the petitioner for the allotment of the Retail Outlet Dealerships Petrol Pump for the Territory-Deoria, District- Maharajganj, Location Description-FROM CHIUTAHA BAZAR CHURAHA UPTO 2KMS EITHER SIDE ON PARTWAL-NICHLAUL ROAD, with regard to the Appointment of Retail Outlet Dealerships in the State of Uttar Pradesh by Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. (BPCL). II. Issue a writ, order, or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondent authorities to allot the Retail Outlet Dealerships Petrol Pump to the petitioner for the Territory- Deoria, District-Maharajganj, Location Description-FROM CHIUTAHA BAZAR CHURAHA UPTO 2KMS EITHER SIDE ON PARTWAL- NICHLAUL ROAD.
III. Issue a writ, order, or direction in the nature of Mandamus restraining the respondent no.3 from issuing fresh notification for conducting fresh draw of lots for the allotment of the Retail Outlet Dealerships Petrol Pump for the Territory-Deoria District-Maharajganj, Location Description-FROM CHIUTA BAZAR UPTO CHURAHA Н 2KMS EITHER SIDE ON PARTWAL-NICHLAUL ROAD, with regard to the Appointment of Retail Outlet Dealerships in the State of Uttar Pradesh by Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. (BPCL). IV. Issue any other writ, order, or direction, which this Hon'ble Court may deem just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case;
and V. To award the cost of the Writ Petition in favour of the Petitioner.”
3. Brief facts of the case that are relevant for the adjudication of the instant writ petition are that Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd ( (hereinafter referred to as BPCL) / respondent no. 2 issued an advertisement dated 28.06.2023 inviting applications for the appointment/award of Retail Outlet Dealership Petrol Pump for the Deoria, District Maharajganj, Location Description from Chiutah Bazar, Churaha upto 2 kms, either side on Partwal-Nichlaul Road. The petitioner applied for the award of the said retail outlet dealership and received a confirmation of the same from BPCL / respondent no. 2 via E-mail dated 25.11.2023. The date for the draw of lots was fixed as 07.12.2023, in which, the petitioner participated. On the same day, the petitioner was informed via E-mail that he has been declared as provisionally selected for the award of Retail Outlet Dealership Petrol Pump. The petitioner was required to pay a sum of 30,000/- towards initial security deposit and to submit the set of documents as specified in the email for processing of his application for the aforesaid award of retail outlet dealership. Accordingly, the petitioner, made the aforementioned payment of 30,000/- and submitted the requisite documents.
4. Thereafter, the petitioner received another E-mail from BPCL- respondent no.2 to upload Khasra/Khatuani or any other equivalent document confirming the status of his ownership of the ‘land’ as on the date of application in respect of which the petitioner intends to open the Retail Outlet Dealership Petrol Pump, as on the date of application.
However, on 17.12.2024, the petitioner received an E-mail from BPCL / respondent no. 3 through which he was informed that the documents uploaded by him were found ‘NOT OK’ as the lease of the ‘land’ is executed by only one of the co-owners of Khasra No. 110 which is not in consonance with the Clause 4 (vi) (a) of the ‘D
Click Here to Read the rest of this document
Back
