THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ORDER OR DIRECTION PROHIBITING THE RESPONDENTS FROM GRANTING ANY OUTLET IN GROUP-I CATEGORY TO SUCH PERSONS WHOSE LAND HAS NOT BEEN CONVERTED FOR NON-AGRICULTURAL PURPOSES AS ON THE DATE OF LEASE OR PRIOR TO LEASE IN RESPECT OF LONG TERM LEASE FOR A PERIOD OF 19 YEARS 11 MONTHS AND ABOVE AND ETC.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

ORAL ORDER

The captioned writ petition is filed seeking for following reliefs;

(i) Issue a writ of prohibition or any other appropriate writ or order or direction prohibiting the Respondents from granting any outlet in Group-I category to such persons whose land has not been converted for non-agricultural purposes as on the date of lease or prior to lease in respect of long term lease for a period of 19 years 11 months and above.

(ii) Consequently, issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order or direction directing the respondents to make it compulsory the production of conversion order in the case of long term lease of a land for 19 years 11 months and above for considering the applications in Group-I.

(iii) Grant such other reliefs as this Hon'ble Court deems fit to grant in the facts and circumstances of the case in the interest of justice.

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1. Perused the material on record.

The petitioner claims to be an applicant pursuant to the advertisement dated 28.06.2023 issued by the respondent–Corporation inviting applications for selection of dealers for Regular Rural Retail Outlet under Group–I category. The petitioner’s grievance is that the respondent–authorities are allegedly processing and entertaining applications of certain candidates without insisting upon production of conversion orders in respect of the subject lands, converting the same from agricultural to non-agricultural purposes. It is in this backdrop, the petitioner has invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court seeking issuance of a writ in the nature of prohibition restraining the respondents from allotting retail outlets in favour of such applicants whose lands are not converted as on the date of lease or prior thereto, particularly in cases involving long-term lease of 19 years and 11 months or more. Consequentially, a writ of mandamus is also sought to direct the respondents to mandatorily insist upon production of valid conversion orders as a condition precedent for consideration of applications.

The said claim is stoutly resisted by the respondents by filing statement of objections. Respondent No.1 has, at the outset, questioned the very maintainability of the writ petition by contending that the nature of relief sought is general, sweeping and in the realm of a Public Interest Litigation, though the petition is not styled as such. It is specifically contended that the petitioner has failed to demonstrate any enforceable legal right or personal injury so as to maintain the present writ petition. It is further contended that issuance of a writ of prohibition as sought for, against a Public Sector Undertaking in contractual matters relating to allotment of retail outlets, is misconceived and not maintainable in law.

Learned counsel for the petitioner, reiterating the averments made in the petition, would place reliance on certain judicial precedents to contend that even in contractual matters, where arbitrariness or deviation from prescribed norms is alleged, this Court can exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is contended that in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, this Court ought to intervene and ensure that the respondents adhere strictly to statutory requirements, including insistence on land conversion prior to grant of dealership.

Per-contra, l