Eligibility for dealership applications must strictly adhere to stipulated guidelines regarding land ownership and lease terms.

ORDER :

1. Aggrieved by the rejection of the dealership application of the petitioner under the SC category in the Group 1 class and the consequential award of the same in favour of the 4th respondent by respondents 1 to 3, the present writ petition has been directed against the said order.

2. It is the case of the petitioner that pursuant to the advertisement dated 28.6.2023 of respondents 1 to 3 pertaining to allotment of retail outlet dealership, the petitioner submitted his application on 17.10.2023 towards which the petitioner received an e-mail confirmation dated 10.02.2024 inviting him to participate in the ‘draw of lots’. Subsequently, vide communication dated 22.2.2024, the petitioner was informed of his provisional selection for dealership and was requested to upload the requisite documents. Though the petitioner uploaded all the documents, but for one, relating to the land documents, as at the requisite time, there was a dispute in the subdivision of 30 cents of land offered by the petitioner’s father on lease out of the 69 cents in S. No.234/1A, the said document was not accepted online. Thereafter, vide e-mail dated 20.05.2024, the petitioner was called upon to upload the rectified documents on or before 10.06.2024. Since, according to respondents 1 to 3, as the petitioner has not uploaded the rectified documents within the stipulated time, the candidature of the petitioner was found to be ineligible for consideration under the Group 1 category, but could only be considered for selection along with the applicants under Group 3 as per guidelines.

3. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner sent a representation on 2.8.2024 seeking his selection under Group 1 category. Since the said representation was not considered, the petitioner filed W.P. No.28615/2024 and this Court, vide its order dated 23.09.2024 directed the 3^rd respondent to pass appropriate orders. However, without taking into consideration all the relevant facts and documents, the respondents rejected the representation of the petitioner and selected the 4th respondent under Group 1 category aggrieved by which the present petition has been preferred by the petitioner.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, reiterating the aforesaid averments as stated in the affidavit, further submitted that though there was delay in uploading the documents, however, the petitioner has uploaded the necessary documents on 25.5.2024 and 03.06.2024, but erroneously the same was not considered and the candidature of the petitioner was rejected, which is per se perverse and unsustainable.

5. It is the further submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that as per clause (p) of the Guidelines, the scrutiny of documents was to be carried out only at the time of Field Verification of Credentials and, therefore, even if the petitioner had belatedly uploaded the documents, as alleged, the process of selection is a continuous process and, therefore, the verification of documents could be done at the time of Field Verification as well. However, without considering the said aspect, the respondents 1 to 3 rejected the application of the petitioner without giving necessary weightage to the aforesaid facts, on technicalities and flimsy reasoning, which cannot be sustained.

6. It is the further submission of the learned counsel that the hurried manner in which the case of the petitioner has been rejected and the case of the 4th respondent has been considered and approved, shows clear favoritism, as the time given for compliance to the petitioner and the 4th respondents to upload the documents would establish the said fact. Accordingly,