SRI S v. RAMANA'SC The Court made the following

Petition under Articre 226 of the constitution of rndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired therewith, the High court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more parlicurarry one in the nature of writ of lVrandamus decraring the proceedings in HRT. NRo-131, dated 26 -02.2024 (received on dt.05.03.2024), wherein the Respondent No. 2 has declared the petitionerb candidature as inerigibre for awarding of Ro (Retair outlet) dealership for the retair ouflet situated at Batasingaram Viilage of Ranga Reddy District' due to an inadvertent typograph.icar error in the period of rease, that crept in the lease deed bearing Doc No. g37 t2023 dated 15.09.2023, as wholly illegal, arbitrary, unjust, unco nstitutio nal and violative of Article 14 and 19(1Xg), despite the document of rectification bearing Doc. No. 61t2o24 dated 25.01 .2024 was submitted, thereby consequenfly to direct the Respondents to award the RO dealership at the aforesaid site -rli6i$ ;. lA NO: 1 oF 2024 PetitionUnderSection,l5lCPCprayingthatinthecircumstancesstatedin the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the Respondents refraining them from awarding the subject RO (Retail Outlet) dealership to any third party pending disposal of the above writ petition Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. SRINIVASA RAO PUTLURI Counsel for the Respondents: SRI S. V. RAMANA'SC The Court made the following: ORDER ./a la\ I I I HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.SHRAVAN KUMAR Writ Petition No. 6446 of 2o24 ORDER This writ petition is filed seeking the following prayer "...declaing the proceedings in HRT:NRO131 dated 26.O2.2024 receiued on dt.05.O3.2024 wherein the Respondent No.2 has declared the petitioners candidature as ineligible for a utarding of RO Retail Outlet Dealership for the retail outlet situated at Batasingarom Village of Ranga Reddy Distict clue to an inaduertent tgpographical enor in the perioct of lease that crept in thp lease deed beaing Doc.No.937/ 2023 dated 15.O9.2023 as uholly illegat, arbitrary, unjus| uncorLstitutional and. uiolatiue of Atticle 14 and 1919 despite the doanment of rectification beaing Doc.No.6l/ 2O24 dated 25.01.2024 was submitted therebg consequentlg to direct the Respondents to award the RO clealership at the aforesaid site..."

2. The facts of the case in brief are that tl,re petitioner is from tribal area and completed matriculation. White so, respondent Corporation have published a notice in Eenadu (Telugu) and Deccan Chronicle (trnglish) and Swatanthra Vaartha (Hindi) dated 2a.06.2023 inviting the applications for awarding RO (Retail Outlet) dealership for distribution of commodities. After going through the same, petitioner intended I I 2 : :-* to app11' for the said RO (Retail Outlet) dealership Thereafter' petitioner r:Lrtcred into a lease agrcement for a period of 20 years after paying considerable amount bearing Doc'No 937 12023 dated 15.09.2O23 registcred on Lhe file of SRO' Abclullapurmet' Ranga Redclv District. It is submitted that an inadvertent typographical crror took place in the lease deed i e" instead of lease peritr<l being dated 15.Og.2O23 Lo 14 09 2043 it was typed as 15.09'2022 Lo 14.Og.2042 Unknowingly petitioncr has uploaded litc same and rcspondent No 2 througl-r e-mai1 dated 30.12.2023' statcd that petitioner's candidature \\Ias provisioneLlll' selcctcd. Latcr, by rectifying the said error' a rectilrcaLirrrr lease deed bearing Doc'No'61 12024 dated

25.Ol.2Ot',4 rr as scnt to respondcnt No 2'

3. 1-hereafter, petitioner reccivccl an email on 26 Ol '2024 ' requestinEl to upload certain documents by 16'O2'2024 Howeve r, on 15.O2.2O24, respondent No 2 sent another e mail to petitioncr stating that pctitioner's candidature was rejected Thereafter, petitioner made represcntation to the autl'rorities or.t lg.O2.20'.24 arrd 24.O2 -2024 requesting to re-examine the entire issue. Srrbsequently, on 26.02 2024, respondent No 2 sent a letter to petitioner stating that the case of the petitioner cannot be reconsidcred for the reason that there was no valid lease I I I I I ; I I l i ) deed for required term period, despite existence of such deed. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that on enquiry, it u,as revcaled that similarly placed persons, application was accepted by receiving simple notarizcd affidavit and proceedings were also issued to that effect. euestioning the said rcjection letter, the present writ petition is hled.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that subsequent to the notification dated 2g.06.2023, no furthcr notification u,as issucd and that petitioner was diligcnt in updating the respondent authorities by furnishing a copy of renewed lease deed and has taken all steps in rectifying the error. However, rejecting the petitioner,s application only on the basis of typographical error woulcl cause severe irreparable loss to the petitioner and pray this Court to pass appropriate orclers. .

5. A counter alfidavit has been filed by respondents denying the averments made by the petitioners. It is stated that the lease deed with regard to the land should be available with the applicant as on the date of application and should have minimum lease of 19 years 1l months (as advertised by the oil company) from the date or after the date of advertisement but not later than thc date of application. The lease deed submitted by-tt€ petitioner along with application was not valid fbr 19 4 years 11 morrths lrom 17.1O'2O23 i'e', date of application' Hence the application of tl-re petitioner is not meeting the guidelines issued by the oil corporation lt is further submitted that petitior-rct- h:rs also acknow'lcdged his mistakc aud made a rectification deed on 24.O1.2024 where in it $'as accepted by the applicant lhat tl-rc lcase cieed dated 15 O9 2023 was not valid for 19 years 11 months from the date of applicatlorr' as such submitted rectification deed.

6. Mr.S.V.Ramana, learncd standing counsel for respondents submits that since the entire process of calling of tender is strictly as per stiputations atld any deviation disentitles thc petitioner's candidature as suclt respondent authorities are right in pzrssing the impugncd ordcrs Learncd standing counsel rvould further subn'rit that as or-r thc date of applicatiorr i.e., on 17.1O.2023, the petitioner is not having valid lease of 19 r'ears 11 months, as such thc candidature of the petitioner u,as lound ineligiblc.

7. This Court on 12.03'2024 in I'A'No' 1 of 2024 has granted interim order clirecting the rcspondents to refrain from awarding Lhc subject R.O- dealcrship to an5r third party for a period ol onc weck. Thereafter, the said interim order was i ; 'i I I I I i I I i I I 5 extended from time to time and on 06.11.2024. this Court extended the interim order until further orders.

8. Heard learned counsel on either side, perused the record.

9. It is pertinent to note Lhat apart from the issue of lease deed, there is no other reason menlioned for rejection of petitioner's candidature. Having considered the submissions made by lcarned counsel on either side, this Court is o[ the considered vielr. that since the petitioner has already entered into rectification deed by correcting the lease period from 15.09.2023 to 14.O9.2043 instcad of t5.O9.2022 to 74.Og.2042, which u,as subsisting as on the clate of filing of application i.e., on 17.1O.2023, the impugned ordcr dated 26.02.2024 passed by respondent No.2 is hereby set aside and this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent authorities to re_ examine the candidature of thc petitioner, if he is otherwise eligible, strictly in accordance to law. If the respondent authorities seek any further clarifications, the petitioner shall be put on notice and after giving a fair opportunity of hearing, shall pass appropriate orders. Till the final decision is taken on the petitioner's candidature, the interim order granted by this Court on 12.03.2024 shall contin ue. 6 B. \A'iLh the above observations, this writ petrtion 1S disposed of' As a sequel, miscellaneous petitiol-ls pending' il an1" shall stand closcd To, //TRUE COPY// OSMAN ALI BAIG NT REGISTRAR CTION OFFICER \ i\l 2 1 The Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited' Executive Director' Bharat ilr;", i 8ol, Currimurrorv noad' Ballard Estate' Mumbai- 400001' The Bharat Petroleum Cotpti'tion f-itited' Territory Manager (Retail)' nui""rr[uJ, p"st Bag No'4,icl' cherlapally' Hyderabad - 500051 ' Bl"" ff;';Ri'sniNrvnsn RRb purluRt' Advocate toPUCl il; aa io snr. s. v. RAMANA, sc [oPUC] J 4 5 Two CD CoPies B M/BSK i- HIGH COURT DATED:0810712025 .,: . /-j' /:- - '... 17 SEP 206 -,,1. \} r .i',.\ .J. . ,| ?,. * 1)t S:.' -. -, . .-_\\ -/ -..2. ORDER WP.No.6446 of 2024 DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS q \