- (1.) By means of present writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:- "(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding/ directing the respondents to consider the application of petitioner for grant of retail outlet dealership at Kharela, District Mahoba under OBC category; (ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding/ directing the respondents to include the name of petitioner for the draw of the location Kharela, District Mahoba under OBC category." This much is reflected from the record that the respondent-Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited (in short "the Corporation"), a Government of India Enterprises, issued an advertisement on 8.7.2014 inviting applications for grant of retail outlet dealership/ rural retail outlet dealership throughout the State of U.P. Total 966 locations were advertised in the said advertisement. The location in dispute namely Kherela District Mahoba was advertised at Sl. No.803, which was reserved for OBC category. As per the advertisement, the selection for the location was to be made on the basis of the draw to be conducted amongst the eligible candidates. The requirement of fund, available on the date of application was Rs.12 lacs. The petitioner being fully qualified has submitted his application in the office of respondent no.3 on 4.9.2014. As per the conditions mentioned in the brochure, the petitioner was required to submit various affidavits in support of averments made in the application form. As per the terms and conditions the petitioner was required to submit the copy of bank account in support of available fund on the date of application form. As per Clause 4 (v) i.e. 'finance', the eligibility criteria was that the applicant must possess a sum of Rs.12 lacs on the date of submissions of application form in his account. The last date for submissions of application form was 7.8.2014, which was extended till 31.10.2014. Thereafter, when the petitioner has not received any communication from the office of respondent no.3, he has sought information in this regard under the Right to Information Act from the Corporation. Pursuant thereto vide letter dated 13.6.2016 the petitioner was informed that since the fund mentioned by the petitioner in his application form was not available with the petitioner on the date of affidavit and this mistake is non-rectifiable and therefore his candidature was not considered. After receipt of the said information the petitioner moved an application on 17.6.2016 stating that he was under bonafide impression that the relevant date for availability of the fund is the date of submission of application form and the affidavit filed in support of the availability of funds will be considered. The petitioner further requested in his application that he be also provided an opportunity to file a fresh affidavit in Annexure XA as has been provided to other candidates. It is also averred that as per Clause 4 (v) of the Brochure the applicant must possess a sum of Rs.12 lacs on the date of submission of application form and the said amount must be available till last date of submission of application form. The application was submitted by the petitioner on 4.9.2014 and on the said date the fund of more than 12 lacs was available with the petitioner and the said fund has continued with the petitioner even after last date of submission of application form. Thus non-consideration of application of the petitioner is wholly arbitrary, unjust, unreasonable and illegal.
(2.) On the other hand, Shri Vikas Budhwar, learned counsel for the respondents has vehemently opposed the writ petition. He has placed reliance on the brochure for selection of Dealers for Regular & Rural Retail Outlets. He submits that admittedly the petitioner did not have the requisite amount as per terms and conditions of brochure in his account. The same is also reflected from the entry of the pass book of the said date annexed at page 37 of the writ petition. In the present matter the affidavit was prepared on 28.8.2014 and as per page 37 of the paper book, on the sate date the amount in question was deficient. On 26.8.2011 in the said account there were Rs.8,50,442/-, on 29.8.2014 Rs.2 lacs has been deposited and as such on the said date there was an amount of Rs.10,50,442/- in the account and as such it is submitted by Shri Vikas Budhwar that on the date of affidavit the account of the petitioner was deficient and as per the terms and conditions of the brochure he did not have the requisite amount in his account and as such this Court should not come to rescue and reprieve of the petitioner and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.
(3.) We have occasion to peruse the record in question. We find that the petitioner had applied pursuant to advertisement dated 8.7.2014 for grant of retail outlet dealership/ rural retail outlet dealership for the location Kherela Distt. Mahoba under OBC category on 4.9.2014. The candidature of the petitioner was not considered on the ground that as per terms and conditions of the brochure he did not have the requisite amount in his account on the date of affidavit. The requirement of fund for consideration of application in question was Rs.12 lacs. We have occasion to go through the application form in question and at page 4/5 there is 'note' provided in which it is quoted as under:- "Note: The funds mentioned above should be available with the applicant as on the date of affidavit. Further the applicant should ensure that the minimum funds required for eligibility are also available as closing balance on the cut-off date for submission of application. Wherever available funds on the cut-off date of submission of application are found to be less than the funds required for eligibility, candidature of the applicant will be cancelled.";