Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J. - (1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) Brief facts as noticed by this Court are that an advertisement for awarding of regular LPG Distributorship was published on 31.12.2012. The site in question was published at S.No.182 for awarding the distributorship of Indian Oil Corporation at Sojat, Pali under OBC category. The procedure for selection of candidates, determining the eligibility criteria of applicants, carrying out the draw of lots, conducting the Field Verification of Credentials (FVC), dealing with the grievances and complaints etc. was provided in the Guidelines for Selection of Regular LPG Distributors (for short 'Guidelines') published in December, 2012. The petitioner and private respondent no.5 both applied for the same and participated in the process. The petitioner, however, raised an issue regarding the land offered by the private respondent for construction of the godown, pointing out that it did not meet the requirements as laid down by the Guidelines as the way connecting the land in question with the road was not available with the private respondent. The petitioner sought information regarding the same under RTI Act but the same was not given. However, the private respondent was selected by draw of lots being conducted by the respondent Corporation on 20.11.2014 and a letter of intent was issued in his favour on 19.10.2015.
(3.) Counsel for the petitioner has demonstrated from trace map Annex.8 that the land offered by the private respondent for construction of godown does not have any approach road. Counsel for the petitioner has further drawn the attention of this Court to the report issued by the Patwari, Sojat on 15.1.2016 in which it was recorded that the land situated in khasra nos.1853 and 1852 were not connected with public road. The Patwari further recorded that in between the petitioner's land and the public road, there is a land of khasra no.1855 which has been recorded in the name of another khatedar. Counsel for the petitioner has also shown that the issue was brought to the knowledge of the respondent authorities but an illegal FVC was conducted by the authorities and NOC was issued in favour of the private respondent for constructing a godown on the land offered by him contrary to law. Counsel for the petitioner has also shown that the controversy regarding Section 90A of the Act of 1956 was put in abeyance by the Municipal Council and the license was suspended by the D.S.O. while recording that the license was issued in gross violation of Rajasthan Petroleum Product (Licensing and Control) Order, 1990. Counsel for the petitioner has further shown that since there was no free accessibility to the land in question, therefore, the respondent Corporation ought to have cancelled the LOI granted in favour of the private respondent. Counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that in similar circumstances, the candidature of another candidate was rejected by the respondent Corporation which is reflected at Annex.12 dated 14.1.2015. Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in B.R. Chowdhury. vs. Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd. And others, 2004 2 SCC 177, the relevant para no.9 reads as follows:- "9. The appellant gave an affidavit for securing the dealership. In paragraph 10 of the affidavit, which is reproduced in the impugned order, it is clearly stated that if any information given by the appellant in any application or in any document submitted by him in support of his application for the award of dealership is found to be untrue or incorrect or false, the Corporation would be within its rights to withdraw the letter of intent, terminate the dealership/distributorship (if already awarded) and that he would have no claim whatsoever against Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. For such withdrawal/termination. Further paragraph 56 of the memorandum of agreement, as indicated in the impugned order, gave liberty to the Corporation to terminate the agreement on finding that any information given by the dealer in his application for appointment was found to be untrue or incorrect in any material respect." Counsel for the petitioner has also relied upon the judgment of this Court in Ram Lal vs. Jagannath & Ors.,2016 2 DNJ(Raj) 478 wherein this Court has laid down the law that right of way cannot be permitted by the Tehsildar as per Section 251 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955.;