Gosala Raju vs The Indian Oil Corporation ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 1829 AP

     THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE U.DURGA PRASAD RAO


                 Writ Petition No. 8450 of 2019

ORDER:

The petitioner seeks a writ of mandamus declaring the action of

respondents in rejecting the application of the petitioner for award of

Retail Outlet (RO) Dealership on Vullipalem Road in Koduru Mandal,

Krishna District vide communication reference No.15454925764175

by e-mail dated 23.06.2019 on the ground of there being an

inadvertent error in noting of survey number as wholly arbitrary,

illegal, unjust and violative of fundamental rights and consequently

direct the respondent Nos.1 to 3 to allow the candidature/application

of the petitioner and permit him to make necessary correction to bring

it on par with the manual application submitted by the petitioner and

pass such other orders as deemed fit.

2. The petitioner's case succinctly is thus:

a) The respondent Indian Oil Corporation Limited (IOCL) issued

notification for appointment of retail outlet at Koduru Village, Koduru

Mandal, Krishna District under Schedule Caste (SC) category on

25.11.2018 vide paper publication in Eenadu Telugu daily. The

petitioner belongs to Scheduled Caste (SC) community and he

possessed requisite qualifications. Hence, he submitted online

application dated 22.12.2018 with requisite enclosures vide reference

application No.15454925764175 and also in physical form dated

13.02.2019. The 1st respondent Corporation conducted draw of lots

of all applications on 06.02.2019 and selected the petitioner as eligible 2 UDPRJ, W.P.No.8450 of 2019

candidate for allotment of dealership for the above mentioned

location. On 09.02.2019, the respondent Corporation sent an e-mail

directing the petitioner to submit relevant documents and other

information and the petitioner obliged and submitted the same on

13.02.2019 to one Mr. Srivardhan Reddy, Senior Manager, IOCL

Divisional Office at Vijayawada.

b) Thereafter, to the petitioner's surprise and shock, on 23.06.2019

the respondent Corporation vide reference No.15454925764175 sent

an e-mail to the petitioner rejecting his application/candidature on the

ground that the land documents submitted by him were not valid.

Upon receipt of the said e-mail, the petitioner addressed an e-mail

dated 24.06.2019 seeking detailed clarification as to why his

application was rejected. He received reply from the respondent

Corporation directing him to coordinate with State office at

Hyderabad. Therefore, the petitioner visited Divisional Office at

Vijayawada on 24.06.2019 and during enquiry, he was informed that

though the manual application submitted by him contains requisite

information intact with regard to survey numbers and document

number of the offered land, a clerical error with regard to survey

numbers occurred i.e., in the column of survey number, the document

number has been mentioned in the online application form, due to

which his application was rejected. The respondent authorities ought

to have verified his manual application and accepted his candidature.

The petitioner though submitted that error was only a clerical error 3 UDPRJ, W.P.No.8450 of 2019

while filling up online application and the same was bona fide mistake

and respondent did not hear him and took hypertechnical approach.

There was no dispute with regard to land offered by the petitioner and

it is in confirmity with the requirements under the notification as

referred to the dimensions and location and as such the respondent

authorities ought not to have rejected the application/candidature

basing on the clerical error.

Hence, the Writ Petition.

3. Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 filed counter inter alia contending that

the 1st respondent invited applications for Petrol Pump dealerships in

various locations on 25.11.2018 through its online portal. Applicants

are grouped into three (3) categories viz., Group 1, 2 and 3 for each

location based on the type of land they are offering for the location of

Petrol Pump. Group-1 - category of applicants are those having

requisite land in their own name or in their family members' name as

per definition of family. In the Group-2, applicants having land not in

their name or family members' name but have firm offer from the

landlord who has given his willingness in the affidavit as per format

Appendix 3 A either to lease the land or sell the land in case the

applicant gets selected for the location. Group-3 applicants are not

having any land. Further, based on the investment by the Corporation

/Dealer, locations are divided into two (2) groups. The 1st group is CC

i.e., Corporation Controlled and 2nd group is DC i.e., Dealer

Controlled. While the selection procedure for CC sites is through 4 UDPRJ, W.P.No.8450 of 2019

bidding, draw of lots is used to select dealers for DC and CFS sites.

Applications have to be submitted through online only and the

selection is also done by online draw of lots.

a) The petitioner applied for Petrol Pump dealership through

online "petrolpumpdealerchayan" portal for the location "Koduru- on

Vullipalem Road, Koduru Mandal" vide online application reference

No.15454925764175, dated 22.12.2018. As per guidelines, online

mode is the only mode for submission of application and manual

applications were not allowed. Further, only supporting documents

have to be submitted physically after being advised by the respondent

Corporation upon preliminary selection of any applicant through

online draw of lots/bids opening.

b) The respondent Corporation received three (3) applications, out

of which only two (2) applications including the petitioner had offered

owned/leased land for setting-up of petrol bunk. Petitioner was

selected through online draw of lots since there was two (2) applicants

with owned/leased land i.e., Group-1. Accordingly, the respondent

Corporation informed the petitioner about his selection for Retail

Outlet (RO) dealership at the subject location vide e-mail dated

09.02.2019. He was requested to remit an amount of Rs.20,000/-

through online towards Initial Security Deposit (ISD) to submit

required documents within ten (10) days. The petitioner has remitted

the said ISD on 10.02.2019 and submitted the documents to the

respondent Corporation on 13.02.2019. During verification of the 5 UDPRJ, W.P.No.8450 of 2019

documents, the Application Scrutiny Committee of the respondent

Corporation found that the land documents submitted by the petitioner

do not pertain to the land mentioned by the petitioner in his online

application. Hence, as per guidelines, the land offered by the

petitioner could not be accepted as the petitioner could not

substantiate his claim made in his online application. The defect in

the petitioner's application regarding the wrong survey number is a

non-rectifiable defect. Hence, the petitioner was informed that his

land documents were not valid for consideration under Rule and that

his candidature/application has been found ineligible vide e-mail

dated 23.06.2019. However, it was said in the e-mail that the

petitioner's application might be eligible for consideration along with

other applications i.e., Group-3 as per the guidelines, if none of the

remaining applicants with land offer for this location are selected. It

is pertinent to mention that once application is submitted online, it

cannot be edited/modified and there is no provision in the guidelines

for submitting manual application as claimed by the petitioner. The

applicants are obligated to substantiate the claims/declarations made

by them in their online application, since applicants are selected in the

preliminary round through draw of lots/opening bid, which is solely

based on the online application before the contents of those online

applications get verified. Hence, the onus to submit correct

information in the online application Form is on the applicants. As

per Clause-22 of the guidelines, if the information provided in the

application is either suppressed/misrepresented/incorrect or false, then 6 UDPRJ, W.P.No.8450 of 2019

the application is liable to be rejected without assigning any reason.

Since the petitioner herein has given incorrect information regarding

survey number of his land in the online application, the respondent

Corporation has rejected the application. Further, the manual

application submitted by the petitioner cannot be taken into

consideration.

c) It is finally submitted that the allotment has been already made

in favour of the 5th respondent after rejection of the petitioner's

application and therefore, the writ petition has become infructuous.

d) The respondents thus prayed to dismiss the Writ Petition.

4. As per orders dated 30.12.2019 in I.A.No.2 of 2019, the

petitioner got impleaded the 5th respondent in whose favour the Retail

Outlet (RO) dealership was allotted.

5. The counsel for the 5th respondent filed counter in similar lines

as that of respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and contended that the selection

procedure was held with fairness and when there are several

applications for one dealership and the selected candidate was unable

to prove his eligibility, the fairness principle demands the respondent

Corporation to give a chance to other applicants to prove their

eligibility. By furnishing wrong information to the respondent

Corporation , the petitioner violated the guidelines and in the process,

the 5th respondent was selected.

                                   7                                    UDPRJ,
                                                            W.P.No.8450 of 2019




a)    The petitioner filed rejoinders against the counters filed by the

respondent Nos.1 to 3 and 5 and contended that the respondent

Corporation deliberately allowed the 5th respondent's security deposit

of Rs.20,000/- upon completion of ten (10) days, contrary to the rules.

The 5th respondent submitted requisite documents through his

application on 01.07.2019 and security deposit of Rs.20,000/- was on

04.07.2019. The 5th respondent did not seek any extension of time in

writing. The last date for submission of application was 02.07.2019

and hence, the candidature of 5th respondent cannot be accepted as per

the guidelines. The receipt of the documents without security deposit

is contrary to the rules.

b) It is further contended that the petitioner was not given an

opportunity to explain that the mistake was only a clerical one and to

rectify the error prior to the selection of 5th respondent. It is

contended that the selection of 5th respondent was done in a hurried

manner on 23.06.2019 at 06:45 PM, which was non-working day

(Sunday).

6. Heard the arguments of Sri M.N. Somendra Reddy,learned

counsel for the petitioner, Sri Sai Sanjay Suraneni, learned Standing

Counsel for respondent Nos. 1 to 3, and learned Assistant Solicitor

General of India representing respondent No.4, and Sri Bandla Samba

Siva Rao, learned counsel for respondent No.5.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner severely challenged the

impugned e-mail communication dated 23.06.2019 sent by the 8 UDPRJ, W.P.No.8450 of 2019

respondent Corporation. Learned counsel would submit that the only

mistake that was committed by the petitioner was instead of

mentioning the survey number of the land secured by him on lease for

setting up RO dealership, by mistake, he mentioned the lease

document No.2689 of 2018 in the online application dated 22.12.2018

submitted by him. The said mistake was neither deliberate nor with

an ulterior motive to get advantage for obtaining RO dealership. The

mistake was purely accidental and without any dishonest intention.

Learned counsel would strenuously argue that the petitioner obtained

the required land of 0.12 cents covered by Survey Nos.721-1 and 722-

1 situated at Koduru Village within the locality required by the

respondent Corporation under a registered Lease Agreement dated

20.12.2018 vide registered document No. 2689 of 2018. In column

No.13 of the application, under the heading "land details", the

petitioner has clearly mentioned the date of lease document as

20.12.2018. However, under the column "Khasra No./Khatouni

No./Gut No/Survey Number", instead of mentioning the survey

numbers as 721-1 and 722-1, he mentioned the document number i.e.,

2689 of 2018. This mistake cannot be treated as a deliberate one as

by such wrong mentioning, the petitioner was not going to derive any

benefit. Since the particulars of document were already mentioned,

the respondent Corporation with reference to the said document, could

have easily identified the location of the property during their field

inspection. Instead of undertaking such exercise and giving an

opportunity to the petitioner to explain the clerical mistake, the 9 UDPRJ, W.P.No.8450 of 2019

respondent Corporation has unjustly and illegally discarded the

application of the petitioner though he was qualified in all respects for

securing the RO dealership. Learned counsel for the petitioner would

argue that the principles of natural justice were flagrantly violated.

He further argued that misquoting of document number in place of

survey number does not amount to an attempt to change the nature of

property, which was originally offered in the application.

Consequently, such mistake will not fall within the realm of non-

rectifiable deficiencies as contended by the respondent Corporation.

He placed reliance on Rajesh Parmar Vs. Under Secretary,

Petroleum Corporation and Others1 to bolster his argument and

prayed to allow the Writ Petition. Incidentally, he argued that the 5th

respondent cannot claim that his rights would be prejudiced, if the

Writ Petition is allowed because as per the admission of the

respondent Corporation, only two candidates i.e., petitioner and the 5th

respondent because eligible under Group-1 and in online draw the

petitioner was selected. Therefore, 5th respondent can be considered

only if the petitioner is ultimately disqualified.

8. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3

Sri Sai Sanjay Suraneni while admitting that the respondent

Corporation has received three (3) applications, out of which only two

(2) applicants viz., the petitioner and the 5th respondent were selected

in Group-1 as they offered owned/leased land for setting up of RO

dealership and during the online draw of lots, the petitioner was

MANU/MP/0121/2019 10 UDPRJ, W.P.No.8450 of 2019

selected, however, would contend that during verification of the

documents, the petitioner's candidature/application was rejected on

the ground that the documents submitted by him were not valid for

considering the offered land under Group-1. In expatiation, learned

counsel argued that the petitioner submitted documents to the

respondent Corporation on 13.02.2019 and during the verification of

the documents submitted by him, the Application Scrutiny Committee

of the respondent Corporation found that the land documents

submitted by the petitioner do not pertain to the land mentioned by the

petitioner in his online application and therefore, as per the guidelines,

the land offered by the petitioner could not be accepted. Learned

counsel would vehemently argue that the defect committed by the

petitioner in his online application such as mentioning wrong survey

number is a non-rectifiable defect. He filed a list of non-rectifiable

deficiencies along with the material papers. He, thus, supported the

decision of the respondent Corporation and to buttress his claim he

placed reliance on the following decisions.

1. Shivkant Yadav Vs. Indian Oil Corporation and others2.

2. Pankaj Mantri Vs. Indian Oil Corporatio, Bhopal and others3.

3. Badrilal Patidar Vs. Indian Oil Corporation and others.4

4.Indian Oil Corporation and others Vs. Raj Kumar Jha5

and prayed to dismiss the Writ Petition.

  (2007) 4 SCC 410

  (2013) 3 MP LJ 466

  (2014) 3 MP LJ 524

  (2012) 2 PL JR 783
                                   11                                    UDPRJ,
                                                             W.P.No.8450 of 2019

9. Learned counsel for the respondent No.5 Sri Bandla Samba

Siva Rao would argue that the petitioner has not made clean breast of

his case as he suppressed the survey number of the land offered by

him and mentioned a different survey number in his application which

is a non-rectifiable defect and therefore, the respondent Corporation

has rightly rejected his application and as the 5th respondent was the

only applicant got eligibility along with the petitioner, he was granted

the RO dealership. If the Writ Petition is allowed, his rights will be

jeopardised.

10. Point for consideration is whether the wrong quoting of survey

number in the online application by the petitioner can be considered

as a non-rectifiable defect/deficiency and thereby his application can

be rejected?

11. Admittedly, as per the counter of respondent Nos.1 to 3, the

respondent Corporation has received three (3) applications for the

location "Koduru- on Vullipalem Road, Koduru Mandal" and the

petitioner's application was one of them. Out of those three (3)

applications, two (2) applicants including the petitioner, had offered

owned/leased land for setting up of a RO dealership. Finally, the

petitioner was selected through online draw of lots out of two

applicants with owned/leased land under Group-1. The other eligible

applicant in Group-1 is the 5th respondent. While so, vide e-mail

dated 09.02.2019, the respondent Corporation informed the petitioner

to remit Rs.20,000/- online towards initial security deposit and submit 12 UDPRJ, W.P.No.8450 of 2019

the required documents within ten (10) days. Accordingly, the

petitioner remitted the initial security deposit on 10.02.2019 and

submitted the documents to the respondent Corporation on

13.02.2019. To this extent, there is no demur as the facts are

admitted. Then, according to respondent Corporation, during the

verification of documents submitted by the petitioner, the Application

Scrutiny Committee found that the land documents submitted by the

petitioner do not pertain to the land mentioned by the petitioner in his

online application and therefore, as per the guidelines, the land offered

by the petitioner could not be accepted and ultimately, vide e-mail

dated 23.06.2019, the respondent Corporation informed that the

petitioner's candidature/application was found ineligible. However,

he may be considered for selection along with Group-3 applicants as

per guidelines. In essence, the contention of the respondent

Corporation is that the survey number of the land offered by the

petitioner in the online application is different from the survey number

mentioned in the document submitted by him.

12. I gave my anxious consideration to the facts and law.

a) It is true that as per the guidelines, an applicant has to submit

his application only on online mode and petitioner complied with the

same. A perusal of copy of the online application filed along with

material papers would show that in Serial No.13 of the application

under the heading "land details", the petitioner mentioned under the

column "date of registration of sale deed/gift deed/registered lease

deed/date of mutation" as 20.02.2018. Similarly, under column 13 UDPRJ, W.P.No.8450 of 2019

"location of the land with respect to Reference point / Land mark", he

mentioned as "Koduru- on Vullipalem Road, Koduru Mandal 300

meters from Koduru RTC Bus Stand." Then, so far as the column

No.13 "Khasra No./Khatouni/Gut No./Survey No", is concerned, the

petitioner mentioned as "2689 of 2018", which, the reader at first

blush may take as survey number of the land offered by the petitioner.

However, according to the petitioner, it is not so, and the said number

relates to document number, but not survey number.

b) In this regard, I perused the copy of the registered Leased

Agreement filed by the petitioner which shows that the petitioner

entered into Lease Agreement with one Mr. Gudivada Srinivasa Rao,

the land owner in respect of 12 cents of land covered by Survey

Numbers 721-1 and 722-1 situated at Koduru Village and Revenue

Mandal, Krishna District. He obtained the lease for twenty one (21)

years for the period covering 20.12.2018 to 19.12.2039. The

document Further shows that in the schedule of the property, the

extent, survey numbers, boundaries of the lease hold property are

pellucidly mentioned in the lease deed. The document was registered

with the Joint Sub Registrar, Avanigadda and the registration number

of the document is 2689 of 2018. Thus, it is obvious that in the online

application, the petitioner by mistake, mentioned document number

under the column earmarked for survey number. Now, the pertinent

question is whether by virtue of this mistake, the application of the

petitioner is liable to be rejected on the ground that the particulars

mentioned in the online application are sacrosanct and incorrigible.

                                    14                                  UDPRJ,
                                                            W.P.No.8450 of 2019

The respondent filed a list of non-rectifiable deficiencies. It reads

thus:

The following deficiencies in the application form "for retail outlet dealership selection are non-rectifiable and such applications will not consider for further selection process:

a. xxx b. xxx c. xxx d. xxx e. xxx f. xxx g. xxx h. xxx i. xxx j. xxx k. xxx l. xxx m. xxx n. xxx o. xxx p. Changes in Khasra No/Khatouni No/Gut No/Survey Number etc., offered land.

q. xxx r. xxx s. xxx No alteration/addition/deletion in the application form will be permitted except affixing of photograph and putting signature on the application form. The rectified or additional documents would be accepted only if they are pertaining to the information provided in the Application form.

c) Probably basing on the above guidelines, the respondent

Corporation argued that in vehemence that changes in the survey

number entails the application rejection.

d) I am unable to accept this argument. On a conspectus, I can

only say that the wrong or incorrect mentioning of document number

in the place of survey number by the petitioner in his online 15 UDPRJ, W.P.No.8450 of 2019

application is only a clerical error but not a deliberate or intentional

one. It is nobody's case that by such wrong mentioning, the petitioner

can hope of getting any advantage. By logical analysis, one can easily

say that the property described in the document No. 2689 of 2018 is

the same which the petitioner wanted to offer for setting up RO

dealership. As stated supra, the survey numbers of the lease hold

property are clearly mentioned in the said document and during the

course of physical inspection, the authorities of respondent

Corporation can easily discern the same. Thus, virtually, there is no

change in the property offered in the online application and

subsequently. Running the risk of pleonasm, it must be said, the

property offered is one and the same. The document No. 2689 of

2018 contains the full description of the property showing its extent,

boundaries location and survey numbers. It is trite law that if

boundaries are correct, it prevail over extent and survey number.

That being so, the respondent Corporation by applying the

hypertechnical approach, rejected the application of the petitioner on

the sole ground that the survey number mentioned in the online

application did not match with the survey number mentioned in

document No. 2689 of 2018.

e) The respondent Corporation being the instrumentality of State,

falls within the domain of Article 12 of the Constitution of India and

commercial contracts entered into by it are subject to judicial review

to confirm whether in the course of entering into contracts, the

respondent Corporation maintained fairness, transparency and level 16 UDPRJ, W.P.No.8450 of 2019

playing field as reiterated by the Hon'ble Apex Court and different

High Courts by following Wednesbury's principle. A decision which

is perverse or so irrational that no reasonable person would have

arrived at the same will not be sustained in a Court of law. Perversity

or irrationality of decisions is tested on the touchstone of

Wednesbury's principle. In that context, it can be said that the

decision of the respondent Corporation is anything, but fair and just

and devoid of principles of natural justice. Pedantic interpretation of

list of non-rectifiable deficiencies by the respondent Corporation is

highly deprecable. What is stated in the said list is that the change in

Khasra No/Khatouni No/Gut number/Survey Number etc., of offered

land is a non-rectifiable deficiency and such application will not be

considered for further selection process. This stipulation can only be

interpreted in the sense that an applicant who has given a particular

Khasra No/Khatouni No/Gut No/Survey Number in his online

application cannot be allowed at later stage to show a different survey

number meaning thereby, a different property. The emphasis shall lay

on the change in the property by virtue of change in the survey

number. However, that is not the case here. The greatest sin if at all

committed by the petitioner was only that of mentioning document

number instead of survey number. On clear probe into the identity of

the property through the said document number, one can come to an

understanding that what was sought to be offered in the online

application and at later stage, is one and the same. Thus, basically

there is no change in the property, much less, deliberate change with 17 UDPRJ, W.P.No.8450 of 2019

an ulterior motive to get an unjust advantage by the petitioner.

Therefore, in my considered view, even if the list of non-rectifiable

deficiencies is strictly applied to the case on hand, the same will not

debilitate the petitioner's case.

13. The Rajesh Parmar's (1 Supra) case relied upon by the

petitioner is more or less similar in nature. In that case, the applicant

wrongly mentioned the survey number of the land offered for setting

of Retail Outlet (RO) dealership as S.No. 405 instead of original

survey number 572/2/1. However, the location, area and dimensions

of the land offered for establishment of petrol pump remain the same.

When his application was rejected, the High Court of Madhya Pradesh

observed thus:

"5. xxx.

xxx.

It is also true that in response to invitation of applications through paper publication for allotment of petrol pump outlets, offers made by the applicants and acceptance thereof are in the realm of commercial transactions guided by the principles of Indian Contract Act, at the same time, the process of selection must be in conformity with the concept of reasonableness on the touchstone of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Fairness is the basic requirement of principle of natural justice; sine qua non of rule of law. There is no dispute that the land offered by the petitioner is in conformity with the requirements under the advertisement as regards its dimensions and location. However, inadvertence or clerical error occurred in the description of land in the application could not have been stretched too far to conclude that the land offered is at variance with the survey number mentioned in the application to declare the applicant not eligible for allotment of petrol pump (emphasis supplied). Such recourse adopted by the HPCL purportedly relying upon the aforesaid quoted last lines of Annexure R/4 is in conflict with the Wednesbury principles of reasonableness lucidly explained by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in catena of cases.

6. xxx:

        7.xxx
                                     18                                  UDPRJ,
                                                             W.P.No.8450 of 2019

8. The approach of the respondent - HPCL in dealing with the application of the petitioner is found to be hyper technical and arbitrary in nature".

The High Court ultimately allowed the Writ Petition.

14. I find the decisions cited by counsel for the respondent

Corporation, are distinguishable.

15. The facts in those decisions would show that the applicants

have suppressed the facts deliberately with ulterior motive. Hence,

their cases were rejected. In Shivakanth Yadav's case (2 supra), the

appellant therein deliberately suppressed his income of Rs.1,64,000/-

per annum and disclosed it as Rs.84,000/- in his application form

which fact was revealed during the enquiry. Hence, a decision was

taken not to allot dealership to him. The Hon'ble Apex Court in that

context observed that there was a requirement to disclose the true and

correct fact, which did not appear to have been done. The appeal was

accordingly dismissed.

16. In Pankaj Mantri's (3 supra) case also the application of the

petitioner for Retail Outlet (RO) dealership was rejected by the IOCL

on the ground that in the application form the petitioner made a mis-

statement of facts that a sum of Rs.3 lakhs was available in his bank

account, whereas, as per the investigation report a sum of Rs.9,675/-

was available and similarly, in respect of another account Rs.14,867/-

was available. In that context, referring to various judgments, the

High Court of Madhya Pradesh refused to allow the Writ Petition.

                                       19                              UDPRJ,
                                                           W.P.No.8450 of 2019

17. The facts in Badrilal Patidar's (4 supra) case also relates to

suppression of correct balance of amount lying in the bank account of

the applicant seeking Retail Outlet (RO) dealership. The High Court

of Madhya Pradesh observed that even if the misrepresentation or

furnishing of incorrect information does not affect the eligibility

condition, then also it was open to the respondents to reject the

candidature in view of the discrepancy found in the material

information disclosed in the application and in the Field Information

Report. Needless to emphasize that in the instant case, there was no

material discrepancy with regard to the property offered by the

petitioner for setting of Retail Outlet (RO) dealership. Property

remains the same which is discernible from the document itself.

18. In Raj Kumar Jha's (5 supra) case, the facts are that the

applicant seeking LPG distributorship while filing affidavit in the

Format-A, was required to declare that the applicant had never been

convicted for any charge; no charge had been framed by any Court of

law for any criminal offences involving moral turpitude or an

economic offence. Instead of mentioning that no charge had been

framed by any Court of law, he mentioned "no office" in Hindi i.e.,

instead of mentioning "Nyayalay" he mentioned "Karyalay".

However, considering the said mistake as a grave one, the High Court

of Patna held that the Corporation was justified in rejecting the

application of the Writ Petitioner.

19. Thus, in all the above decisions cited by the respondents, the

mistake was not an un-intentional, but it was deliberate. However, 20 UDPRJ, W.P.No.8450 of 2019

that is not the case in the present Writ Petition. Therefore, on

conspectus facts and law, I hold that the petitioner's application was

unjustly and illegally rejected by the respondent Corporation. Hence,

the writ petition merits consideration.

20. So far as the 5th respondent is concerned, as rightly argued by

the counsel for the petitioner, he cannot harp any injustice if writ

petition were to be allowed, because he stands only next to the

petitioner and his candidature can be considered only in the event of

the petitioner is legally disqualified. That is not the case here.

21. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed and respondent Nos.1

to 3 are directed to entrust the dealership of Retail Outlet at Koduru-

on Vullipalem Road, Koduru Mandal, Krishna District to the

petitioner by completing the formalities and by terminating the

dealership of the 5th respondent in two (2) weeks from the date of

receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs.

As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any, pending for

consideration shall stand closed.

                                          _________________________
                                          U. DURGA PRASAD RAO, J

16th April,, 2021
krk
                              21                            UDPRJ,
                                                W.P.No.8450 of 2019




      THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE U.DURGA PRASAD RAO




                Writ Petition No.8450 of 2019




                      16th April, 2021
krk