ORDER:

rd The 3 respondent had issued a notification dated 25.11.2018 inviting applications for selection of Retail Outlet Dealers in various locations including the location mentioned at Sl.No.746 in the notification, which is “Chinarikatla Junction (after 1 km from NH Junction) towards Kanigiri road (within 3 kms) on NH-565. The applicant obtained registered lease agreement for the land situated at 3.4 kms from NH Junction and filed his application. The petitioner was informed by a letter dated 12.02.2019 that he was qualified for draw of lots for selection, which was to be held on 22.02.2019. Thereafter, he was informed by a letter dated th

27.06.2019 of the 4 respondent that he was the only eligible candidate, and as such, declared as selected even without any draw of lots.

2. After selection, the petitioner had submitted all the documents sought by the respondents. On 21.11.2019, the petitioner was informed that the Land Evaluation Committee would visit the site proposed by the petitioner on 30.11.2019. This site was inspected on that day. Thereafter, there was a consequent visit on 28.12.2019. After these th two visits, there was no information from the 4 respondent despite various representations made by the petitioner, in February 2020 and May 2020. As there was no response from the respondents, the petitioner filed W.P.No.10138 of 2020 challenging the inaction of the respondents. By an order dated 05.10.2020, this Court had disposed of the writ petition with a th direction to the 4 respondent to pass appropriate orders.

th

3. The 4 respondent, by the impugned proceedings dated

07.12.2020 had declared that the petitioner was ineligible as the land offered by him was found to be at a distance of 3.4 kms., from Chinarikatla junction against the advertised requirement of within 3 kms.

4. Aggrieved by the said rejection, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition. The complaint of the petitioner is that the notification was understood to mean that the proposed site should be after 1 km., from Chinarikatla junction and within 3 kms., thereafter. This confusion arose because of the ambiguous statement made in the notification. The petitioner is also aggrieved by the impugned order on the th ground that the petitioner had made an alternative plea to the 4 respondent that it should be permissible to consider an alternative site under Note-3 of Guideline No.4 (v) (m) of the selection guidelines.

5. Guideline 4 of the selection guidelines sets out the eligibility criteria. Guideline No.4 (v) stipulates that all applicants are classified into Group-1, Group-2 and Group-3. Where land offered by applicants under Gropu-1 or Group-2 is found not suitable, then the applicants under Group-1 and Group-2 along with the applicants under Group-3 would be advised by the Corporation to provide suitable land in the said area within a period of three months. Note-3 of guideline 4(v) states that in case the alternate land offered by the Letter of Intent holder is found not meeting the laid down criteria, the Letter of Intent holder would be intimated of the same and time would be given to make available land.

6. Sri I. Koti Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had offered a site at a distance of 3.4 kms., from the junction in the belief that the 3 km., distance would be measured after the end of the first kilometre and that the petitioner is willing to offer alternate site within the 3 km., distance required by the Corporation. He submits that since the mistake occurred due to the ambiguity in the notification, the rejection of the application of the petitioner and the refusal to grant Letter of Intent is not valid.

7. Sri Ashok Ram V., learned Standing Counsel for the respondent-Corporation submits that the criteria set out in the notification is quite clear and there is no ambiguity in the notification. He submits that the petitioner could have approached the respondent-Corporation if there was any such ambigui