- (1.) Heard Sri. Jitendra Nath Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner. Sri. Prakash Padia, learned counsel has put in appearance on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and Sri. Y.K. Srivastava, learned counsel has put in appearance on behalf of respondent No. 4.
(2.) Pursuant to advertisement dated 29 September, 2013 issued by Indian Oil Corporation (for short "Corporation") inviting applications for allotment of L.P.G. Distributorship for various locations including location at Govindpur, Allahabad under O.B.C. category, petitioner applied by submitting application form. Petitioner along with the form submitted a lease deed dated 24 October, 2013 for the shop and showroom alleged to have been executed by the Allahabad Development Authority for a period of 15 years. During field verification undertaken by the Corporation it appears that the competent officer of the Development Authority informed the Corporation, vide communication dated 24 November, 2015, that the lease deed filed by the petitioner is an illegal and bogus document for the reason that Sri. Ramesh Chandra, an employee of the Development Authority had no right and authority to execute the lease deed. This fact was reaffirmed by the Authority vide subsequent communication dated 27 May, 2016. In the circumstances, the candidature of the petitioner came to the cancelled by the impugned order in terms of clause 6 of the brochure on Guidelines for Selection of Regular L.P.G. Distributors-May 2013 holding therein that petitioner did not fulfil the eligibility criteria on the last date of submission of the form.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has disputed the authority of the officer viz. Sri. Alok Kumar Pandey, the author of the communications which is the basis for passing of the impugned order contending that he had no authority to communicate on behalf of the Development Authority. Further, it is urged that a sale-deed/free-hold deed was subsequently executed by the Development Authority in respect of the disputed shop on 2 May, 2016, therefore, would contend that the irregularity, if any, was subsequently corrected by the Development Authority, hence, it is urged that the candidature of the petitioner could not have been rejected.;