Sangeet Lodha, J. - (1.) BY way of this writ petition, the petitioner has questioned the result of interview conducted by Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited (BPCL) for Retail Outlet (Petrol Pump) Dealership, for the location Pokaran on Jodhpur Highway (upto 20 kms.) District -Jaisalmer, pursuant to the advertisement dated 9.6.12.
(2.) THE respondent -BPCL issued an advertisement dated 9.6.12 for allotment of the Retail Outlet Dealership inter alia at the location Pokaran on Jodhpur Highway. The petitioner and the respondent No. 3 herein applied for the dealership. The result of the interview conducted for allotment of the dealership was declared on 30.1.13, wherein the petitioner secured 88.32 marks and the respondent No. 3 herein, secured 91.05 marks. The petitioner made a representation questioning the correctness of the marks awarded to the respondent No. 3 under the head of "capability to provide infrastructure and facility". According to the petitioner, the respondent No. 3 had offered the land for establishment of the Retail Outlet, which he had taken on lease for 20 years and therefore, he was lacking in eligibility criteria regarding availability of the suitable site. That apart, the petitioner also questioned the award of 30.85 marks to him and 34.85 marks to the respondent No. 3, under the head of "capability to provide infrastructure and facility". However, the respondent proceeded to issue Letter of Intent in favour of the respondent No. 3. Hence, this petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the respondent No. 3 has taken the land offered on lease for a period of 20 years and has paid the stamp duty on the lease deed for a period of 20 years only, however, the wrong details were furnished in this regard by him in the application form. Learned counsel submitted that as per the eligibility criteria laid down, an applicant must own the land or have registered long lease of the land, for a minimum period of 30 years at the location in question and thus, the petitioner was not entitled to be considered for award of the dealership. Learned counsel submitted that the respondent -BPCL has erred in awarding weighted marks 34.65 to the respondent No. 3, treating the land offered by him to be his own land.
(3.) ON the other hand, the counsel appearing for the respondent -BPCL submitted that the complaint made by the petitioner was investigated. Learned counsel submitted that though the respondent No. 3 was entitled for 35 marks even on the basis of lease deed for 20 years, keeping in view, the condition incorporated in the brochure in this regard, however, to clarify the position, the information was sought from Sub Registrar, Pokaran, before whom the lease deed was registered, who in its turn, confirmed that the lease deed existing in favour of the respondent No. 3 has been registered for a period of 30 years. In this regard, learned counsel has drawn attention of this court to the communication dated 20.3.13 sent by the Sub Registrar, Pokaran, whereby it has been clarified that the lease deed registered is for the period of 30 years and the period "20 years" has been wrongly printed thereon on account of computer error. Learned counsel submitted that as per the condition incorporated in the brochure, the applicant having own land or having land on long lease (registered) for a minimum period of 30 years, as on the date of the application, is entitled for 35 marks and therefore, the evaluation committee has committed no error in awarding 35 marks to the respondent No. 3 under the head of "capability to provide infrastructure and facility". Learned counsel submitted that since the petitioner had offered his own land, he has also been awarded 35 marks. Learned counsel submitted that the weighted marks of the petitioner as also of the respondent No. 3 under the said head comes to 34.65 and therefore, the grievance raised by the petitioner regarding award of marks under the said head is absolutely baseless.;