Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Challagali Chaitanya Kumar vs The Union Of India on 5 February, 2021
Bench: R Raghunandan Rao
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO
W.P.No.24472 of 2020
ORDER:
The 3rd respondent had issued a notification dated 25.11.2018
inviting applications for selection of Retail Outlet Dealers in various
locations including the location mentioned at Sl.No.746 in the notification,
which is "Chinarikatla Junction (after 1 km from NH Junction) towards
Kanigiri road (within 3 kms) on NH-565. The applicant obtained registered
lease agreement for the land situated at 3.4 kms from NH Junction and
filed his application. The petitioner was informed by a letter dated
12.02.2019 that he was qualified for draw of lots for selection, which was
to be held on 22.02.2019. Thereafter, he was informed by a letter dated
27.06.2019 of the 4th respondent that he was the only eligible candidate,
and as such, declared as selected even without any draw of lots.
2. After selection, the petitioner had submitted all the
documents sought by the respondents. On 21.11.2019, the petitioner was
informed that the Land Evaluation Committee would visit the site
proposed by the petitioner on 30.11.2019. This site was inspected on that
day. Thereafter, there was a consequent visit on 28.12.2019. After these
two visits, there was no information from the 4th respondent despite
various representations made by the petitioner, in February 2020 and May
2020. As there was no response from the respondents, the petitioner filed
W.P.No.10138 of 2020 challenging the inaction of the respondents. By an
order dated 05.10.2020, this Court had disposed of the writ petition with a
direction to the 4th respondent to pass appropriate orders.
2 RRR,J
W.P.No.24472 of 2020
3. The 4th respondent, by the impugned proceedings dated
07.12.2020 had declared that the petitioner was ineligible as the land
offered by him was found to be at a distance of 3.4 kms., from
Chinarikatla junction against the advertised requirement of within 3 kms.
4. Aggrieved by the said rejection, the petitioner has filed the
present writ petition. The complaint of the petitioner is that the
notification was understood to mean that the proposed site should be
after 1 km., from Chinarikatla junction and within 3 kms., thereafter. This
confusion arose because of the ambiguous statement made in the
notification. The petitioner is also aggrieved by the impugned order on the
ground that the petitioner had made an alternative plea to the 4th
respondent that it should be permissible to consider an alternative site
under Note-3 of Guideline No.4 (v) (m) of the selection guidelines.
5. Guideline 4 of the selection guidelines sets out the eligibility
criteria. Guideline No.4 (v) stipulates that all applicants are classified into
Group-1, Group-2 and Group-3. Where land offered by applicants under
Gropu-1 or Group-2 is found not suitable, then the applicants under
Group-1 and Group-2 along with the applicants under Group-3 would be
advised by the Corporation to provide suitable land in the said area within
a period of three months. Note-3 of guideline 4(v) states that in case the
alternate land offered by the Letter of Intent holder is found not meeting
the laid down criteria, the Letter of Intent holder would be intimated of
the same and time would be given to make available land.
6. Sri I. Koti Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner submits
that the petitioner had offered a site at a distance of 3.4 kms., from the
junction in the belief that the 3 km., distance would be measured after the
3 RRR,J
W.P.No.24472 of 2020
end of the first kilometre and that the petitioner is willing to offer
alternate site within the 3 km., distance required by the Corporation. He
submits that since the mistake occurred due to the ambiguity in the
notification, the rejection of the application of the petitioner and the
refusal to grant Letter of Intent is not valid.
7. Sri Ashok Ram V., learned Standing Counsel for the
respondent-Corporation submits that the criteria set out in the notification
is quite clear and there is no ambiguity in the notification. He submits that
the petitioner could have approached the respondent-Corporation if there
was any such ambiguity and the petitioner cannot, at this stage, turn
around and claim that there is ambiguity in the notification.
8. Sri Ashok Ram would also rely upon the judgments of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India v. S. Vinodh Kumar1; K.A.
Nagamani v. India Airtimes2; K. Vinod Kumar v. S. Palanisamy &
ors.,3; Chinmoy Sarkar & ors., v. Md. Shaniat Hossain4; and P.
Shanmugam v. The State Coordinator, Tamil Nadu5, to contend that
the scope of judicial review is very limited in such matters and that the
petitioner is estopped from contending that the notification was incorrect
after participating in the selection process.
9. The judgments sited by Sri Ashok Ram are to the effect that
a person, who has participated in a selection process, cannot turn around
and challenge the selection process after being rejected. The judgments
are also to the effect that judicial review is generally restricted to the
(2007) 8 SCC 100
(2009) 5 SCC 515
(2003) 10 SCC 681
AIR 1990 Cal. 412
(2006) 3 MLJ 1492
4 RRR,J
W.P.No.24472 of 2020
decision making process and does not concern with the decision itself.
There is no quarrel with the propositions as they are settled principles of
law. The question is whether these principles require to be applied to the
present case or not.
10. It is not the case of the petitioner that the conditions set out
in the selection process are arbitrary or need to be set aside. It is the case
of the petitioner that there was ambiguity in the notification, which gave
rise to the confusion resulting in his application being rejected. The
petitioner is now seeking a second chance to offer a land which is within
the parameters required under the advertisement.
11. This Court, while being sympathetic to the case of the
petitioner, must hold that the Corporation cannot be asked to deviate
from the conditions of the notification. The stipulation as to distance from
the junction and the location of the site is of primary importance in the
present case. Any variation accepted at this stage would amount to
alteration of the terms of the tender notification after the selection of the
petitioner, and the same would not be permissible.
12. Sri Ashok Ram also submits that after the rejection of
application of the petitioner he would be relocated to Group-3 and it
would still be open for the petitioner to offer a site within 3 kms., distance
stipulated in the notification, along with the other applicants in Group-3.
13. In these circumstances, the present writ petition would have
to fail and the same is accordingly dismissed leaving it open to the
petitioner to offer any alternative site along with other applicants falling in
Group-3 for this particular location. In the event of any such offer being
made by the petitioner, the same shall be considered by the respondent-
5 RRR,J
W.P.No.24472 of 2020
Corporation in accordance with the selection guidelines applicable to the
case. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand
closed.
_________________________
R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J.
5th February, 2021
Js.
6 RRR,J
W.P.No.24472 of 2020
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO
W.P.No.24472 of 2020
5th February, 2021
Js.
