M Venkatesh vs Union Of India
2021 Latest Caselaw 798 AP

        HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO

                      W.P.No.2863 of 2019

ORDER:

1. The 2nd respondent had issued a notification calling for

applications for allotment of LPG dealership in various places

including Padmanabham Village, Visakhapatnam District. The

petitioner was the successful candidate, for the proposed LPG

dealership in Padmanbham village, in the draw of lots.

Accordingly, a selection letter dated 07.06.2018 was issued to

the petitioner by the 2nd respondent calling upon the petitioner

to produce necessary documents for processing the application

of the petitioner. The documents sought were "Land documents,

viz., Documents pertaining to land/godown/showroom in the

name of applicant or member of 'family unit' Registered Sale

Deed/Gift Deed/Lease Deed (15 years minimum)/Mutation and

Government record (Self-attested photocopy of the original)".

The petitioner had thereafter received a letter of rejection dated

15.11.2018, wherein it was stated that in the process of

verification of credentials it was found that the petitioner did not

have any own land i.e. either a registered sale deed or a lease

deed for the purpose of setting up a showroom in

Padmanabham Village and on that ground his candidature was

being rejected. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner had

approached this Court by way of W.P.No.43215 of 2018, which

was disposed of by an order dated 10.12.2018 directing the

petitioner to approach the grievance cell of the 2nd respondent

Corporation.

                                    2                                  RRR,J
                                                       W.P.No.2863 of 2019

2. The petitioner approached the grievance cell, which

conducted an enquiry into the matter and issued the impugned

letter dated 27.02.2019 rejecting the candidature of the

petitioner and affirming the earlier rejection order dated

15.11.2018.

3. In the impugned order dated 27.02.2019 the grounds of

rejection were:

a) That the petitioner's claim as rightful owner of the land in assessment No.168 is not correct and there is a Court case pending in the Hon'ble High Court of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad;

b) The land actually falls under survey No.3 which belongs to Ananthapadmanabha Swamy Temple and the said land cannot be registered or transferred anybody under the Registration Act;

c) The certificate issued by the panchayat that the land in

assessment No.168 was transferred to the petitioner

and the payment of property tax for the month of

September, 2017 was not done as per procedure and

there are no records to show that the land actually

belongs to the vendor of the petitioner;

4. Aggrieved by this proceeding, the petitioner has

approached this Court by way of the present writ petition. Sri

C.Raghu, learned counsel for the petitioner assails the

impugned proceedings on the following grounds:

                            3                                    RRR,J
                                                   W.P.No.2863 of 2019

A) The grounds of rejection in the impugned proceedings

of 09.02.2019 are different from the original grounds of

rejection in the order dated 15.11.2018;

B) The unified guidelines for selection of LPG dealer

distribution issued in June, 2017 provide for the

candidate to offer alternative land, if the original land

offered by the candidate is not acceptable to the

corporation;

C) In the present case, no such facility was given to the

petitioner to offer alternative land. The petitioner had

produced the mutation certificate of the gram

panchayat which was permissible according to the

documents that were required to be produced under

the letter dated 07.06.2018. However, both the

impugned orders speak of registered documents, which

are not necessary, as even mutation of Government

records are sufficient to demonstrate the title of the

candidate.

D) In any event, the 2nd respondent cannot sit in

Judgment over the certificate issued by the gram

panchayat.

E) The impugned proceedings dated 27.02.2019 does not

mention any writ number, whereas in the counter

affidavit the respondents have now mentioned

W.P.No.32949 of 2017, as the litigation pending before

the High Court and the same is not permissible, in as 4 RRR,J W.P.No.2863 of 2019

much as, the respondents cannot supply additional

reasons for the impugned order by way of a counter

affidavit.

5. Sri Ashok Ram V, learned counsel for the respondents

submits that under the unified guidelines the petitioner would

have to produce documents demonstrating that "he owns the

plot of land offered to the corporation" and that the definition of

"own" as provided under guideline-1-W is that the ownership

should be by way of ownership title of the property or registered

lease deed with a minimum validity of 15 years. He submits

that in the present case, the said ownership has not been

demonstrated.

6. Sri Ashok Ram V. would also submit that the petitioner in

his application as LPG distributor had submitted that his

ownership is derived from a document which was registered on

27.09.2017 in Sy.No.38. However, in the course of enquiry it

was revealed that this document which was originally given

number P1606 of 2017 was returned, as the said document

could not be registered. As such, the document offered by the

petitioner as a registered document was not available and the

same is reflected in the original order dated 15.11.2018 and in

the subsequent impugned order dated 27.02.2019.

7. Sri Ashok Ram V. would also submits that the impugned

proceedings dated 27.02.2019 mentions the pendency of a

Court case in the Hon'ble High Court and the subsequent

mention of the actual number of writ petition in the counter 5 RRR,J W.P.No.2863 of 2019

affidavit filed in this petition would not amount to supplying a

fresh ground of rejection and is only to supplement the existing

ground of rejection.

8. Sri Ashok Ram V. would also contend that the facility of

offering the alternative land would be available to a candidate

only if the original land meets all the requirements and it is

found that there is a better alternative land. In the present

case, since the land offered by the petitioner was being rejected

the question of giving any opportunity to offer alternative land

would not arise.

CONSIDERATION OF THE COURT:

9. It is true that ownership of the land offered for setting up

the godown/showroom can be demonstrated by showing

mutation entries in the Government record. In the present case,

the petitioner chose to rely upon a document which was said to

have been registered in the office of the Registrar. However,

since the said document was returned, the respondents would

be entitled to discard the said document, the contention of the

petitioner that mutation in the Government record was not

looked into, would not survive in view of the above facts.

10. The contention of the petitioner that there was only

mention of some legal proceedings is a reason for rejecting the

land of the petitioner in the impugned order and the same

cannot be improved by giving the proof of the writ petition

pending before the High Court, also would not survive. The

settled law has been that the fresh reasons and explanations 6 RRR,J W.P.No.2863 of 2019

cannot be given in a counter affidavit for the purposes of

improving the impugned order. In the present case, furnishing

of the number of the writ petition cannot be said to be an

improvement or additional reason given in the counter affidavit.

11. A perusal of the guidelines would clearly show that a

candidate is permitted to offer alternative land if the alternative

land is offered before the last date for submission of application

and not after that as per Guideline No.8 A (j). Further,

alternative land can be offered only where the original land

meets the requirements and an alternative is being offered as an

improvement over the original land and not on account of being

given another chance to provide for land when the original plot

is rejected for any reason.

12. In these circumstances, there are no merits in the writ

petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. There shall be

no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous

petitions, if any, shall stand closed.

____________________________ R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J.

12th February, 2021 Sdp/Js.

                          7                         RRR,J
                                      W.P.No.2863 of 2019




      HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO




               W.P.No.2863 of 2019




                12th February, 2021
Sdp/Js.