- (1.) The present appeal is directed against the order dated 30.03.2015 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in SCA No.17577/15, whereby the learned Single Judge for the reasons recorded in the order, had allowed the petition.
(2.) The short facts of the case appears to be that on 30.09.2013, the advertisement was given by the appellants inviting applications to award LPG distributorship in Dehgam (Zak), Dist. Gandhinagar in open category. On 28.10.2013, a lease deed was executed in favour of the original petitioner and presented before the SubRegistrar. The last date of submission of the application was 31.10.2013. As per the original petitioner, since he was fulfilling the eligibility criteria for the LPG distributorship in open category, he had made application. On 19.06.2014, the original petitioner was informed that he has been selected for LPG distributorship pursuant to the advertisement dated 30.09.2013 and he was called upon to deposit the requisite amount. On 26.08.2014, a letter was addressed by the original petitioner, but ultimately, on 14.11.2014, the original petitioner was communicated by the appellant that as the lease deed was not registered on 31.10.2013, but was only registered on 11.04.2014, his candidature is rejected and the amount of Rs.25,000/ deposited is already forfeited. Under the circumstances, the original petitioner had approached to this Court by preferring the petition. The learned Single Judge, after hearing both the sides, found that in view of section 47 of the Registration Act, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") once the document was registered, it would take effect from the date as if no registration was required and the learned Single Judge also considered the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Hamda Ammal v. Avadiappa Pathar, 1991 1 SCC 715 and ultimately, found that the petition deserves to be allowed and the learned Single Judge quashed the impugned order. Under the circumstances, the appellants have preferred the present appeal before the Division Bench of this Court.
(3.) We have heard Mr. Akshay Vakil, learned counsel appearing for the appellants and and Mr. Prabhav Mehta for the respondent.;