P.K.LOHRA, J. - (1.) THE petitioner has preferred this writ petition imploring quashment of letter/order dated 2nd of December 2013 (Annex.P/5) passed by the Head, LPG DSC, Rajasthan.
(2.) BY the said communication, the application of the petitioner for LPG Dealership at Kankroli, District Rajsamand, in the category of OBC, was returned back with the original envelope by assigning the reason that the said application was not received in the office of respondent before the last date notified in the advertisement (Annex.1), which was published in Daily 21st Rajasthan Patrika, Udaipur edition, dated of September 2013. As per the advertisement, last date for receipt of application form was notified as 22nd of October 2013 and the application of the petitioner was received in the office of respondent on 25th of November 2013. Assailing the action of the respondent, the petitioner has averred in the petition that the application form for allotment of LPG dealership for Kankroli, District Rajsamand with requisite documents was sent by him in the office of respondent on 15.10.2013. For substantiating the same, the petitioner has placed on record the receipt dated 15.10.2013 of Mukesh Express Service, which is said to be a courier of Kankroli. For proving the delivery of the envelope containing application and other requisite documents, the petitioner has placed on record the copy of delivery register of Khubani Air Pack showing the receipt of the envelope on 22nd of October 2013. Although the delivery register contains initials with BPCL and date but no seal of BPCL is visible.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner Mr. Sandeep Saruparia has urged that when the application form was sent by him on 15th of October 2013 and it was received in the office of respondent on 22.10.2013, the reasons assigned in the impugned order for rejection of his application are not at all tenable. Mr. Saruparia has contended that the receipt of courier and the delivery register speaks volumes about the fact that the envelope which was sent on 15.10.2013 was received in the office of respondent on 22.10.2013, i.e. within the prescribed period as per advertisement, and therefore, rejection of the application, on the ground that it was received belatedly, cannot be sustained. Mr. Saruparia has also questioned the recitals contained in the impugned order Annex.5, which indicate that the application was received in the office of respondent on 25th of November 2013.;