Heard Sri. Ameet Kumar Deshpande, the learned Senior

Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri. Amaresh S. Roja,

the learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

02.

The decision taken by the respondent – Indian Oil

Corporation, in rejecting the petitioner’s application to set up

retail dealership of the first respondent company, is called in

question.

- 3 -

03.

The respondents invited applications from the

eligible persons who are interested in running the retail

dealership of first respondent which is involved in selling the

petroleum products. The requirements for applying for the

retail dealership are spelt out in the broacher. Certain

conditions which are necessary for adjudication of the case in

terms of the broacher at Annexure-A can be summarized as

under:-

The applicants are classified under 03 categories

namely Groups 1, 2 and 3.

The applicants falling under group – 1 category must

possess the ownership of the land or at least long

terms lease for a period for 19 years 11 months as

advertised by the respondents.

The group – 2 applicants are the firms with having

ownership of land or at least lease for a period of 19

years 11 months as specified above in group – 1.

The Group – 3 applicants are the persons who have

not offered the land at the time of application.

04.

The broacher also specified in terms of paragraph

No. d and e, as to what are the documents that can be

considered for considering the applicants under group – 1 and

- 4 -

who are the family members who can be considered for having

consented for offering the land for opening the dealership. The

family members are also defined in the said broacher.

05.

The petitioner in this case admittedly did not

possess the land as on the date of application. Nevertheless, he

made a claim that his brother owns a suitable land and he has

offered the said land on lease by affixing an affidavit as

prescribed. The application is filed by the petitioner along with

consent letter of the person who the petitioner claims to be his

brother. It appears that the several applications are filed. Under

the procedure notified the applicant whose name is picked in

the draw of lots will be considered for awarding the dealership

subject to the applicant fulfilling other conditions.

06.

There is no dispute over the fact that the

petitioner's name is picked in the draw of lots. Thereafter,

during the scrutiny, the respondent noticed that the petitioner

did not own the land which he had offered. It is also noticed

that he was not as a lessee for 19 years 11 months as

prescribed. However, since the petitioner was informed that he

is selected in the draw of lots, he had deposited the security

- 5 -

deposit as prescribed. Later in terms of impugned order the

petitioner was informed that he cannot be considered at this

stage for awarding.

07.

The relevant portion of the impugned order at

Annexure-A reads as under:-

"Dear Sir,

Please refer to your application received by us

as Application form no.15456422182460 on the

subject.

2.

Please also refer to our letter dated 10-Jul-

2019 and wherein you were advised to submit

certain documents.

3.

However, it is observed that land documents

submitted by you are not valid for considering the

offered land under Group-1 for reasons as detailed

below.

Applicant has selected Group 1 in online application

but actually belongs to Group-2 on the basis of

advocates letter/scrutiny on land offered.

4. In view of the above, we regret to inform you that

your candidature has been found ineligible. However,

your candidature may get considered for selection

along with Group-3 applicants as per guidelines."

- 6 -

08.

From the impugned order it is apparent that the

petitioner's application was rejected on the premise that the he

does not fall under Group – 1, category under which he applied.

The respondent – corporation has taken a decision that since

the petitioner is not falling under Group – 1, his application can

be considered only in the