- (1.) WE have heard learned counsel appearing for the appellant and learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 4. The petitioner had applied for allotment of Rajiv Gandhi Gramin LPG Distributorship in Village Mania, District Dholpur, in pursuance to advertisement of the Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. dated 29.02.2012. The last date of application was 30.03.2012. It was found that the land proposed for setting up distributorship by the petitioner, who was selected in the draw of lots, was found short in the size than prescribed in the advertisement. The appellant made an application offering another piece of land, in respect of which he was not found to have the sale deed on the date of the application. His application was rejected on 12.12.2012, after which the dealership was re -advertised, and has settled with respondent No. 4.
(2.) LEARNED Single Judge held that the petitioner did not have requisite land with ownership, on the date of making the application, which was a condition precedent under the selection procedure.
(3.) LEARNED Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition relying upon a judgment of the Supreme Court in Monika Gupta v. Union of India and Ors., : 2010 (6) SCC 574, in which it was held that the ownership of the required land, was a condition precedent for consideration of the application. In paragraph 21 of the aforesaid judgment, it was held as follows: "21. From the above analysis of the application forms and documents filed by respondent No. 4, it is clear that the Selection Committee did not commit any error by awarding 'zero' marks to her under the heading "Capability to provide land and infrastructure for godown and showroom". As a corollary, we hold that the decision of respondent No. 3 to cancel the panel/merit list on the ground that the Selection Committee had erred in not awarding 30 marks to respondent No. 4 under the heading 'infrastructure' was legally unsustainable. Unfortunately, the Division Bench of the High Court failed to notice that in para 17 of the application form, respondent No. 4 had not indicated the availability of land for godown and/or. showroom and that in view of the language of para 8 of the brochure, the Selection Committee had no option but to ignore affidavit dated 8.3.2004 of Ramnath son of Shri Janki Singh and copy of sale deed dated 9.3.2004 executed by Shri Shivnath Singh in favour of Shri Rajesh Kumar Gangwar (husband of Respondent No. 4) for the purpose of awarding marks." Shri Vigyari Shah appearing for the appellants submits that learned Single Judge has erred in dismissing the writ petition, as the appellant was never communicated with the order of cancellation of his application, and was not informed that the land disclosed by him in the application was in sufficient in measurement, and that in any case, under Clause 6.7 of the selection procedure in the Brochure, he could have produced the valid documents of ownership of the land, upto the date of field verification. The petitioner -appellant had in his subsequent application given details of availability of land with the requisite measurement, for which he had produced the documents of title upto the date of field verification.;