SANGEET LODHA, J. - (1.) By way of this writ petition, the petitioner is seeking directions to the respondents to award LPG Distributorship in his favour at Kailashpuri, District Udaipur pursuant to his selection in the draw of lots.
(2.) The Oil Companies including the respondent-Indian Oil Corporation Limited (IOCL), issued an advertisement inviting applications for award of Rajiv Gandhi Gramin LPG Distributorship (RGGLV) at various locations in the State of Rajasthan. The petitioner applied for award of distributorship at the location Kailashpuri, District Udaipur under 'Open Category'. Vide communication dated 7.8.13 issued by the Senior Area Manager, IOCL, the petitioner was informed that he has qualified for draw for selection of RGGLV. The draw of lots was conducted on the scheduled date wherein the petitioner was selected. Pursuant to the communication dated 6.5.15 of Chief Area Manager, IOCL, Jodhpur Area Office, the petitioner deposited a sum of Rs.25,000/- as security deposit. However, after field verification, it was found that land offered by the petitioner for the purpose of Showroom and Godown is located at village Matata and not at the advertised location Kailashpuri. Accordingly, vide communication dated 1.10.15, the candidature of the petitioner was rejected and an amount of Rs.20,000/- deposited by the petitioner with the Corporation was forfeited in line with the policy. Hence, this petition.
(3.) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that as per the selection process of the respondents, only eligible applicants are liable to be included for draw of lots and admittedly, the petitioner was found eligible for inclusion in draw of lots and therefore, the question of rejection of the candidature of the petitioner on the basis of alleged field verification holding him ineligible, does not arise. Learned counsel urged that the location advertised was Kailashpuri but admittedly, it has not been mentioned in the advertisement that the land proposed for Showroom and Godown should be situated in the revenue village of Kailashpuri. Learned counsel submitted that the revenue village Matata falls within the area of Ward No.5 of Gram Panchayat, Kailashipuri and thus, the action of the respondents in rejecting the candidature of the petitioner on the ground that the land proposed for Showroom and Godown is not situated at the location advertised, is ex facie illegal and arbitrary. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner had given complete details of the land and the location thereof in the application form and thus, in absence of any suppression or concealment on his part, the respondents are not justified in forfeiting the security deposit.;