Pradeep Kumar @APPELLANT@Hash Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd.

The matter is today listed for orders on an application preferred by Shri Vinay Kothari, learned counsel representing the respondent BPCL under

Article 226(3) of the Constitution of India for vacating the ad interim stay order dated 18.06.2018 passed by this Court in favour of the petitioner.

With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the writ petition is being heard and decided finally today and thus, the application under Article

226(3) of the Constitution of India is dismissed as infructuous.

Brief facts relevant and essential for disposal of the writ petition are that the petitioner herein, applied for allotment of LPG Distributorship for the

village Raas, Tehsil Jaitaran, District Pali in furtherance of the advertisement dated 23.08.2017 floated by the respondent Corporation. While applying

for the dealership in question, the petitioner provided the details a plot of land acquired by him through a lease deed executed by one Smt. Bhanwari

Devi wife of Shyam Lal which was a joint khatedari land falling in Khasra No.1341, Patan Road, Raas, Tehsil Jaitaran as the site for the proposed

godown of showroom. The petitioner was declared entitled for the gas agency in question on the basis of evaluation of marks. However, when the

field verification proceedings of the land were undertaken by the respondents, it came to light that the particular land offered by the petitioner which

he claimed to have taken on lease had not been demarcated and that “no objection certificates†of the other khatedars of the land in question

were not submitted by the petitioner. Thereupon, the respondent Corporation issued the order (Annexure-14) dated 10.05.2018 whereby, the

candidature of the petitioner was cancelled as not being compliant with the selection guidelines and the security amount of Rs.20,000/- deposited by

the petitioner was forfeited. The said order is assailed in this writ petition filed by the petitioner Pradeep Kumar under Article 226 of the Constitution

of India.

Shri R.S. Choudhary, learned counsel representing the petitioner, vehemently and fervently urged that till the time the field verification proceedings

were undertaken, the petitioner was not aware of the judgment-cum-decree dated 17.09.1996 issued by the SDM, Jaitaran whereby, the land in

question had been partitioned amongst the various khatedars/ shareholders. He further drew the Court’s attention to the Mauka report dated

08.02.2018 prepared by the Patwari under the directions of the Tehsildar and tried to buttress that the share of the land as acquired by the petitioner

by way of lease deed executed by Smt.Bhanwari Devi wife of Shyam Lal was clearly demarcated. He thus urged that the respondents were totally

unjustified in drawing a conclusion that the leased land offered by the petitioner for setting up of the godown and showroom was not compliant with

the guidelines. He further urged that the respondents should have given an opportunity to the petitioner to provide alternative land in accordance with

the guidelines before taking the drastic action of cancellation of candidature which has severely prejudiced the petitioner who is an Ex-serviceman

belonging to the Scheduled caste category. He thus implored the Court to exercise its extraordinary writ jurisdiction and quash the impugned order as

being grossly arbitrary and illegal.

Per contra, Shri Vinay Kothari, learned counsel representing the respondent BPCL, drew the Court’s attention to the condition No.1(w) of the

Guidelines for Selection of Dealership and urged that the said condition unequivocally postulates that when leased land owned by numerous co-sharers

is offered by an applicant for the showroom and the godown, no objection certificate of all the co-sharers is quintessential for the land offered to be

treated valid. He drew the Court’s attention to the proceedings of meetings held inter-se between company officials and the petitioner more

particularly, the letter dated (Annexure-R/2) 22.02.2018 wherein, it is recorded that the petitioner himself apprised the company officials that the land

offered by him was of joint holding and that it was not possible to get the same partitioned/ demarcated because of non-availability of all the khatedars.

By way of this application, the petitioner prayed for an opportunity for providing an alternative piece of land. Attention of the Court was also drawn to

another letter dated 22.02.2018 submitted by the petitioner to the Assistant Manager of the BPCL wherein, the petitioner conveyed that he was not

having any alternative land which could be offered for setting up the dealership godown and the showroom. Shri Kothari also drew the Court’s

attention to the letter dated 27.04.2018 forwarded by the Tehsildar, Jaitaran to the Corporation wherein, it was clearly affirmed that the Khasra

No.1341 was having three khatedars namely Shyam Lal, Satyanarayan and Udai Raj and that there were 16 share holders of the land. The land was

of joint holding and since, the same had not been partitioned, it was not possible to identify the exclusive share of Shyamlal. The judgment of the Suit

No.41/1980 was also referred to by the Tehsildar and it was mentioned that no decree of demarcation/ partition was passed by the revenue court. Shri

Kothari submitted that after detailed discussions with the petitioner and after seeking verification from the competent revenue authority viz. Tehsildar

Jaitaran, the competent officials of the Corporation reached to a concrete conclusion that the land offered by the petitioner was not compliant with the

conditions of the Guidelines and since, the petitioner could not offer any alternative land, his candidature was rightly cancelled. He thus implored the

Court to reject the writ petition as being devoid of merit.

I have heard and appreciated the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the material available on record.

The short controversy which is involved in the matter revolves around the issue as to whether the land offered by the petitioner alongwith his

application form was compliant with the conditions of the Guidelines or not. Manifestly, as per the definition clause 1(w) of the Guidelines, wherever

the leased land or jointly owned land is offered by the applicant, consent in form of declaration by all co-sharers of the land is essential. Admittedly,

the petitioner failed to procure the consent/ no objection certificate/ declaration of all the co-sharers who own the Khasra No.1341 for clear

demarcation of portion of land taken by him on lease from Bhanwari Devi wife of Shyam Lal. Admittedly, the petitioner was given an opportunity to

provide alternative suitable land owned or leased to him by the last date of submission of application form. But he candidly replied that he was not

having any such land available for setting up of the agency. The plea putforth by Shri Choudhary that the land stood demarcated under the decree

dated 17.09.1996 is untenable looking to the para No.6 of the certificate (Annexure-R/3) dated 27.04.2018 issued from the office of the Tehsildar,

Jaitaran which reads as below:-

“jktLFkku ljdkj dk;kZy; rglhynkj tSrkj.k] ikyh

Øekad@jktLo@2018@806 fnukad %& 27@04@2018 izsf""kr %&

lgk;d izcU/kd ¼foØ;½

Hkkjr iSVªksfy;e dkiksZjsâ€​ku fyfeVsM mn;iqj

fo’k;%& Hkkjr xSl dh izLrkfor jkl fLFkr xSl ,tsalh ds xksnke dh tehu dk osfjfQdsâ€​ku ckcr~A

 izlax& vkidk i=kad Hkkjr xSl@mn;iqj@jkl@01 fnukad 26-03-2018

&&0&&

mijksDr fo’k;kUrxZr izklkafxd i= ds }kjk pkgh xbZ lwpuk fuEu vuqlkj gS&

1- vkosnd }kjk izLrkfor [kljk uEcj 1341 ea ';keyky] lR;ukjk;.k] mn;jkt firk ekaxhyky dk fgLlk tekcUnh esa 1@2 nâ€​kkZ;k x;k gSA

2- mDr [kljs esa dqy 16 fgLlsnkj gSA

3- [kljk uEcj 1341 dk caVokM+k ugha gks j[kk gS la;qDr [kkrsnkjh Hkwfe gSA vr% [kljs esa “;keyky dk fgLlk dgka gS] ;g Li""V ugha fd;k tk

ldrkA

4- [kljk uEcj 1341 la;qDr [kkrsnkjh Hkwfe gS] tekcUnh] uDâ€​kk layXu gSA

5- [kljk uEcj 1341 dk caVokM+k jktLo jds MZ esa ugha gks j[kk gSA yht ij nsus dk fu.kZ; vkids Lo;a ds foosd ij fuHkZj gSA

6- [kljk uEcj 1341 ds laca/k esa Jheku mi[k.M vf/kdkjh egksn; ds okn la[;k 41@1980 esa caVokM+k lEcfU/kr fMØh ugha gqbZ gSA

7- fnukad 08-02-2018 dh [kljk uEcj 1341 dh ekSdk fjiksVZ iVokjh@Hkw-v-fujh{kd }kjk ekSdk vuqlkj rS;kj dh xbZ FkhA

lgh@&   rglhynkj tSrkj.k tSrkj.k ¼ikyh½â€​Â

The contents of the said communication which was issued by a public servant while discharging his lawful duties and for which, a presumption of its

veracity exists under the Evidence Act, manifestly, the land offered by the petitioner was rightly treated as not being in consonance with the

mandatory guidelines for award of gas agency in question. Hence, the respondents were absolutely justified in rejecting the petitioner’s

candidature by the impugned order (Annexure-14) dated 10.05.2018 which ex-facie does not suffer from any illegality, irregularity or perversity

whatsoever.

As an upshot of the discussion made herein above, the writ petition as well as stay application are rejected as being devoid of merit.

No order as to costs.