Rajesh Kumar Mitharwa @APPELLANT@Hash Union Of India

Heard.

The facts in brief are that the petitioner applied for grant of LPG distributorship at the location Panchayat Samiti Loonwa, Block Loonwa, District

Nagaur in the open category in pursuance of the advertisement dated 23.08.2017. The details of the land offered for setting up of the godown as

well as the showroom were filled by the petitioner in the application form and the supporting documents were also annexed therewith. After

scrutiny of application forms, the petitioner was declared eligible and was intimated regarding field verification proceedings. Shortcomings were

noticed by the FEC team and the petitioner was apprised of the same by letter dated 15.05.2018. The precise shortcomings, which were pointed out

in the said letter, are enumerated hereinbelow :-

Land document for Godown : Khasra no. 79 inKhata no. 54 (old)/60 (new), Village : Sherpura, Tehsil : Nawa in Distt : Nagaur has been taken on

lease from one of the coowners Shri Brijmohan S/o Sh Dhannaram for Godown construction. AS per Jamabandi dated 05.05.18 issued from

Patwari, the land has 11 coowners. The NOC as per Appendix 4 of selection brochure and confirmation deed are required from all the coowners.Â

The same was demanded at time of FVC and till date the documents has not been received.

Land documents for showroom : Khasra no. 602 inKhata No.24 (old)/26 (new) in village Gauravpura, Tehsil : Nawan, Distt. : Nagaur. The land

has been taken on lease from one of the coowners Sh Brijmohan S/o Sh Dhannaram. The land as per Jamabandi has numerous coowners and

NOC as per Appendix 4 and confirmation deed from all coowners has not been provided. Secondly, the land lies outside the village limits of advertised

location “Loonwa†as per the Jamabandi issued by Patwari on 05.05.2018. The offered land for Showroom is not meeting the eligibility criteria

as per the stipulations of advertisement.

In response, the petitioner filed a judgment/decree dated 08.05.2018 passed by the SDO, Nawa and tried to convince the respondents that he owned

suitable land for establishing the godown as well as showroom. However, the application for award of distributorship submitted by the petitioner

was rejected by the Territory Manager, BPCL by letter dated 31.07.2018, the gist whereof is reproduced hereinbelow :-

“(1) The offered land for showroom given in the application is not in Village Loonwa. (the advertised location)

(2) The alternate land offered by you for showroom wasregistered on 05.07.18 which is after the last date of submission of application i.e. 25.09.17.

(3) You have not provided the confirmation deeds fromall the coowners of the godown land taken on lease.â€​

The said communication/letter is assailed in this writ petition filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.Â

Learned counsel Mr. Rajesh Joshi, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. Harshit Bhurani, Advocate, vehemently and fervently urged that the land

offered by the petitioner for the showroom falls within the village Loonwa and also that the petitioner had offered a suitable alternative land, which he

procured through a registered sale deed and thus, the respondents were totally unjustified in rejecting the petitioner’s application.

Per contra, Mr. Sunil Beniwal, learned counsel appearing for the respondent BPCL in caveat, vehemently opposed the submissions advanced by the

petitioner’s counsel. He relied upon this court’s judgment in the case of Karan Singh Vs. The Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited &

Anr. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.16/2013) decided on 07.03.2014 and urged that as the petitioner was not having suitable land in keeping with the

advertisement and the allotment guidelines, manifestly, his application was rightly rejected on this ground. He, thus, craved dismissal of the writ

petition.Â

I have given my thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced at bar and have gone through the material available on record as well as the

impugned order. The location of the land, as mentioned by the petitioner in the application form, is in Village Gauravpura. The claim of the

petitioner’s counsel that the boundaries of the villages Loonwa and Gauravpura are overlapping and thus, the land offered by the petitioner should

be treated to be within the Village Loonwa, is absolutely untenable. The document Annex.4 being the lease deed dated 25.09.2017 through which, the

petitioner acquired the land in question clearly reads that the land was located in the Revenue village Gauravpura. It is not the case of the petitioner

that no Abadi land is available in the village Loonwa. Furthermore, the petitioner was given a notice regarding this shortcoming, whereafter he

purchased a land for setting up of the godown at the village Loonwa. Had it been the case of the petitioner that the land initially offered by him for

the showroom was compliant with the requirement of the advertisement and the guidelines, then there was no occasion for him to make an attempt for

procuring alternative piece of land. Admittedly, the alternative piece of land offered by the petitioner for the showroom was acquired by him

through registered sale deed dated 05.07.2018, i.e. well after the last date for submission of the application forms, i.e. 25.09.2017.

In backdrop of these facts, apparently, the lands offered by the petitioner for setting up of showroom as well as the godown were not located in the

village Loonwa and were rightly not treated to be as per requirement of advertisement and the dealership guidelines. The controversy at hand is

squarely covered by the Single Bench judgment in the case of Karan Singh (supra) relied upon by Mr. Beniwal. Finding no infirmity, illegality or

perversity in the impugned order, I am not inclined to interfere therein while exercising extraordinary writ jurisdiction of this court. Hence, the writ

petition as well as the stay petition are dismissed summarily as being devoid of merit.