SANDEEP MEHTA,J. - (1.) The instant review application has been preferred on behalf of the petitioner Sanjay Choudhary under rule 64 of the Rajasthan High Court Rules, 1952 read with Section 114 and Order 47 of the CPC seeking review of the order dated 03.05.2018 passed by this court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1523/2014. The writ petition was filed on behalf of the petitioner for assailing the order/communication dated 01.01.2014 issued by the Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. (for short, 'IOCL'), whereby the application submitted by the petitioner for award of Rajiv Gandhi Gramin LPG Vitarak dealership at the location Beri Khurd, District Nagaur was rejected and the security amount furnished by the petitioner was forfeited. The instant review petition has been moved on the ground that while deciding the writ petition, this court failed to properly appreciate the documents of the ownership of the plot submitted by the petitioner while applying for the questioned dealership and that the ownership document in the form of the registered sale deed of the plot in question executed in favour of the petitioner's wife in pursuance of the direction given by the respondent themselves was ignored/not considered in entirety, thereby, vitiating the judgment under review.
(2.) Mr. Deepak Nehra, learned counsel representing the petitioner, vehemently urged that clear violation of the petitioner's fundamental right is manifested in the action of the respondent IOCL while rejecting his candidature for award of the dealership in question. Initially, the petitioner aquired the land for setting up of the agency through a lease deed of 15 years. However, by letter dated 10.06.2013, the respondents themselves intimated the petitioner to submit the sale deed, whereafter, the petitioner managed to secure registered sale deed for the land previously offered and thus, the petitioner's application was wholly compliant with the terms and conditions of the advertisement and the instructions applicable to the allotment process and hence, as per Mr. Nehra, this court fell into a manifest error apparent on the face of the record while dismissing the petitioner's writ petition by the order dated 03.05.2018, which deserves to be recalled and the writ petition should be allowed.
(3.) Per contra, Mr. Sandeep Shah, learned counsel representing the respondent IOCL, submitted that the petitioner concealed material facts and tried to mislead the court while pleading his cause in the writ petition. He pointed out that the petitioner's counsel, upon being directed by this court, placed on record the unified guidelines for selection of LPG distributors. However, the guidelines which were submitted pertain to the year 2017, wherein the concept of leased as well as owned land was existing. Mr. Shah has placed on record alongwith an additional affidavit copy of the guidelines in vogue in the year 2012, which were applicable to the selection process of the year 2013 (in which the petitioner applied) and pointed out that in these guidelines, there was no option of accepting leased land for godown/storage required to set up the Gas Agency. At that point of time, 'owned' was defined in clause 6 (h)(iii) of the instructions as having clear ownership title of the property in the name of applicant/family member(s) of the 'Family Unit' as on the last date for submission of application as specified in the advertisement. Mr. Shah pointed out that the last date for submission of the application form in the questioned process was 23.03.2013 and that till the said date, the petitioner either personally or through his wife or family unit was admittedly not having ownership title of the land offered for setting up of the godown/showroom. He, thus, urged that the order under review is perfectly just and legal and that no case is made out to exercise the exceptional powers of review available to this court so as to review or recall the order dated 03.05.2018. He, thus, craved dismissal of the review application with heavy cost.;