APURVA

2026.01.14 16:37

petitioner has failed to furnish a ‘No Objection Certificate’ from the other co-sharers of the land offered by the petitioner for establishment of the Retail Outlet Dealership.

2. Concededly, the land offered by the petitioner is jointly owned by him along with more than fifty other co-owners. It is not disputed before this Court that all the co-owners of the land so offered for the Retail Outlet Dealership have not furnished their respective ‘No Objection Certificates’ in favour of the petitioner for installation of the Retail Outlet on the said land. Apparently, the requirement relating to the land is duly set out in Clause

4(vi)(l) in the brochure (Annexure P-18), which reads as under:- “4(vi)(l) In case the applicant or family member(s) own the land jointly with third person, the consent letter in the form of an Affidavit (Appendix – III) and/or Power of Attorney (Registered) clearly authorizing the applicant for such use of land from third person is also required. Such consent letter in the form of affidavit (Appendix – III) or Power of Attorney (Registered) should have been tendered by the concerned third person(s) on or before the date of application.”

3. Since the petitioner has failed to comply with the aforesaid requirement as stipulated in the Brochure (Annexure P-18), no fault can be found with the impugned order dated 15.07.2025 (Annexure P-9), whereby the candidature of the petitioner for allotment of Retail Outlet Dealership was rejected.

4. At this stage, learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that even if the land offered by the petitioner for setting up the Retail Outlet Dealership has not been accepted by respondent No.2-Corporation, the petitioner is still entitled to be afforded an opportunity to offer an alternate land for establishment of the Retail Outlet Dealership in terms of A 20 P 2 U 6 R . V 0 A 1.14 16:37 Clauses 4(vi) of the Brochure (Annexure P-18), which read as under:-

“4(vi) Land (Applicable to all categories):

The applicants would be classified into three groups as mentioned below based on the land offered or land not offered by them in the application form:-

Group-1: Applicants having suitable piece of land in the advertised location/area either by way of ownership/long term lease for a period of minimum 19 years 11 months or as advertised by the OMC.

Group-2: Applicants having Firm Offer for a suitable piece of land for purchase of long-term lease for a period of minimum

19 years 11 months or as advertised by the OMC.

Group-3: Applicants who have not offered land in the application. Only applicable for locations advertised under SC/ST category.

Applications under Group-3 would be processed/advised to offer land (Annexure-D) only in case no eligible applicant is found or no applicant get selected under Group-1 & Group-2.

In case land offered by all the applicants under Group-1 & Group-2 is found not suitable/not meeting requirement, then these applicant/s under Group-1 & Group-2 along with applicants under Group-3 (who did not offer land along with application) would be advised by the OMCs to provide suitable land in the advertised location/stretch, within a period of 90 days from the date of issuance of intimation letter to them through SMS/e-mail. In case the applicants fails to provide suitable land within the prescribed period, or the land provided is found not meeting the laid down criteria, the application would be rejected.”

5. At this stage, Mr. Raman Sharma, Advocate, appears on behalf of respondents No.2 to 4, in pursuance of the advance copy of paper book having already been supplied to him, and submits that once the land offered by the petitioner is found unsuitable and his candidature stands rejected on that account, in that eventuality, in terms of Clause 14(H)(g) of the Brochure A 20 P 2 U 6 R . V 0 A 1.14 16:37 (Annexure P-18), a redraw would be carried out from amongst the balance eligible candidates of Group-1 and Group-2, as applicable. Clause 14(H)(g)