VANISH KUMAR Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner through instant petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India is seeking setting aside of order dtd. 11/3/2024 (Annexure P-8) whereby his application for the allotment of Retail Outlet Dealership has been rejected.

(2.) The petitioner pursuant to an advertisement applied for the allotment of Retail Outlet Dealership at 'Village Kahlwanto Village Navi Kirri on Batala-Harchowal Road District Gurdaspur'. He was selected in the draw of lots, however, respondent has rejected his candidature on the ground that he has offered Khasra No. 102 in his application which does not fall within the advertised site, thus, he is not eligible for allotment. He, in his application, disclosed Khasra No. 102 and he is owner of Khasra No. 98 as well as 102. Khasra Nos. 98 and 102 are contiguous and if Khasra No. 98 is considered, he falls within zone of consideration.

(3.) Mr. Sachin Ohri, Advocate submits that inadvertently the petitioner in his application mentioned Khasra No. 102. He is owner of Khasra No. 98 as well as 102. He was under the impression that Khasra No. 102 is on front side, thus, he mentioned said Khasra number in his application. It is an error and respondent has adopted hyper- technical approach while rejecting his application.