VIPIN Vs. INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Pursuant to advertisement dated 25.11.2018, the petitioner submitted his application dated 23.12.2018 for allotment of a petroleum retail outlet. Details of land offered by him were mentioned therein. Thereafter, draw of lots was conducted by respondent No.1 in which the petitioner was successful. Vide letter dated 20.06.2019, he was informed that his application had been accepted and that he should submit the documents mentioned in the communication. The petitioner submitted the requisite documents on 14.07.2019. The said documents were scrutinized and lease deed dated 05.07.2019 submitted by the petitioner was not found to be in order. Accordingly, vide communication dated 11.02.2020, it was communicated that the registered lease deed dated 05.07.2019 being of a date later than the date of the application, did not satisfy the conditions laid down in the Brochure dated 24.11.2018.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the land offered in the application dated 23.12.2018 is the same as is mentioned in the lease deed dated 05.07.2019. Thus, rejection of candidature of the petitioner by respondent No.1 is illegal. He relies upon Moumita Poddar vs. Indian Oil Corporation Limited, 2010 9 SCC 291. It is further argued that a period of 21 days should have been provided to the petitioner to rectify the document. The same not having been done, respondent No.1 has violated its own terms and conditions as laid down in the Brochure dated 24.11.2018. Thus, the writ petition deserves to be allowed.

(3.) Learned counsel for the respondents, however, argues that eligibility criteria have been clearly laid down in the Brochure dated 24.11.2018, one of which is that applicants like the petitioner must submit a registered lease deed valid for a minimum period of 19 years and 11 months and the said document should be of the same date as the date of application or of an earlier date. In this case, the registered lease deed is dated 05.07.2019, which is after the date of the application. Thus, the candidature of the petitioner has been rightly rejected. Regarding the argument of rectification raised by learned counsel for the petitioner, it is submitted that no rectification, so far as the date of the lease deed is concerned, is permissible.