- (1.) Petitioner, an unsuccessful applicant for allotment of retail outlet dealership of respondent Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd (for, 'short HPCL') having location at six kilometers from Motipura Chowki Railway Crossing towards Chabbra, Udaipur, has laid this writ petition praying therein under mentioned reliefs :- It is, therefore, humbly and respectfully prayed that this writ petition of the petitioner may kindly be allowed :- A/ By an appropriate writ order or direction, the Result dated 20.01.2011 (Annexure-4) pertaining to private respondent Chetan Maheshwari and private respondent Ram Chand Dhanoria for the location within 6 KM from Motipura Chowki Railway Crossing towards Chabbra may kindly be quashed and set aside. B/ By an appropriate writ, order or direction, for the LOI Dated 27.02.2012 (Annexure-30) and reply Dated 10.02.2012 (Annexure-32) may kindly be quashed and set aside. C/ By an appropriate writ, order or direction, the respondents may kindly be directed to award the dealership to the petitioner after declaring first for the location 6KM from Motipura Chowki Railway Crossing towards Chabbra in the pursuance of the advertisement dated 29.08.2010 (Annexure-1). D/ By an appropriate writ, order or direction, the respondents may kindly be directed to conduct fresh inspection of the land of the private respondent Chetan Maheshwari situated in Khasra No.753/3 and also inspect the Khasra No.753/1 and 753 and while inspection the objection of the petitioner may kindly be dealt in accordance with law. E/ Any other appropriate writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be passed in favpur of the petitioner. F/ Writ petition filed by the petitioner may kindly be allowed with costs.
(2.) The facts necessary and germane to the matter are that respondent, HPCL, issued an advertisement dated 29th of August, 2010 (Annex.1) inviting applications for dealership at various locations besides the aforesaid location in open category. In response to the advertisement, petitioner as well as private respondents offered their candidatures. Interestingly, seventh respondent is sibling of the petitioner. The eligible candidates were called for interview with requisite documents and result of the interview was declared on 20th of January, 2011, wherein sixth respondent, Chetan Maheshwari, stood first by obtaining 93.15 marks, seventh respondent with 92.15 marks ranked second and the petitioner stood third with 90.48 marks. Feeling disgruntled with the selection of sixth respondent, seventh respondent lodged a complaint before HPCL. Be that as it may, nothing transpired pursuant to the complaint of seventh respondent and that prompted him to file a writ petition against the selection of sixth respondent before Jaipur Bench of this Court, but the said effort of the seventh respondent proved abortive. Thereafter adjudging the candidature of the sixth respondent suitable and considering his credentials about the land offered by him for establishment of retail outlet, respondent HPCL issued Letter of Intent (LoI) in his favour on 2nd of November, 2012.
(3.) From the averments contained in the writ petition it emerges out that the petitioner has raised certain objections about the land offered by respondent, Chetan Maheshwari, from Khasra No.753/3 and some part of land from Khasra No.753/1. As per the averments in the petition, he has made illegal encroachment on land, which is part of khasra No.753/1. In this behalf, complaint of the petitioner under Section 136 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act was dismissed by the Sub-Divisional Officercum- Additional District Magistrate Chabra, District Baran on 29th March, 2011. Being aggrieved from that order, petitioner laid an appeal under Section 75 of the Land Revenue Act before Revenue Appellate Authority, Kota and the same was partly allowed by setting aside the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer and the matter was remanded back. The sixth respondent against the order of the Revenue Appellate Authority preferred second appeal under Section 76 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act before the Board of Revenue Ajmer and the Board of Revenue dismissed the appeal by upholding the order passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority. After remand, the matter was reconsidered and still matter is inconclusive.;