WP/4503/2024 of KOPPISETTI HARI Vs UNION OF INDIA on 8 September 2026

ORDER

This Writ Petition is filed questioning the action of respondent no.3 in cancelling the petitioner’s candidature for provisional selection for award of Retail Outlet dealership of IOCL at Chinna Sirlam to Sankili (Regidi Amdalavasala Mandal) on SH. Vizianagaram District, Andhra Pradesh vide drawl of lots on 21.02.2024 without properly considering the representations of the petitioner dated 17.12.2024 and 03.02.2024.

2. The contents of the petition, in brief, are that pursuant to the advertisement inviting applications for award of Retail Outlet dealership (RO), the petitioner submitted application on 29.06.2023 and later the petitioner was informed vide e-mail dated 25.11.2023 that he had been qualified for drawl of lots and was selected in the draw and vide email intimation he had been informed that he was provisionally selected for RO dealership and was requested to remit Rs.40,000/- as Initial Security Deposit and to upload self- attested documents by 17.12.2023 for further processing his application and accordingly, the petitioner remitted Rs.40,000/- and uploaded the documents. As informed by respondent no.2, the petitioner furnished title deeds of the land owned by him in an extent of Ac.0-33 cents in Survey No.376-15A and during verification, he was informed that Survey number had been wrongly mentioned as 375-15A. Thereupon, the petitioner submitted a representation to respondent no.3 dated 17.12.2023 for correction of inadvertent RC,J

typographical error. In response, the respondent no.2 without considering the request sent an e-mail letter dated 23.01.2024 requesting the petitioner to upload by 13.02.2024 the rectified or corrected documents of ownership document for Survey No.375-15A, Appendix VIIA as on the date of application and VIIB and ROW in Appendix V by 13.02.2024. Even after making specific request stating the typographical error in mentioning survey number, the respondent no.3 insisted for providing ownership document for Survey No.375-15A instead of Survey No.376-15A informing that his candidature would be liable for rejection in case he failed to upload the rectified documents. In response, the petitioner sent reply on 03.02.2024 reiterating his ownership over the land in Survey Nos.376-14 and 376-15A and to condone the error in mentioning incorrect survey number and obtained caste certificate (VIIA) and submitted them to respondent no.3 on 08.02.2024. Then the petitioner was informed that as they did not receive any response from the petitioner to the letter of respondent no.3 dated 23.01.2024 within the stipulated time, they had sent an email letter dated 08.02.2024 that his candidature stood cancelled as per guidelines. Cancelling the petitioner’s candidature on 08.02.2024 much before the time stipulated i.e. 13.02.2024 for no response is arbitrary. Hence, the petition.

3. The respondent nos. 2 & 3 filed common counter denying the averments of the writ affidavit further contending that the petitioner RC,J

submitted online application under OBC category by providing the details of the land for setting up the RO in the advertised location and the petitioner’s lot got picked and he was provisionally selected for award of the RO and the petitioner was requested to remit Initial Security Deposit and upload set of self-attested documents such as land ownership documents and proof of specific eligibility criteria, viz., Appendix VII-A (OBC certificate) & VII-B (declaration/undertaking). During verification, there was a discrepancy regarding survey number of the land and that Appendix VII-A & VII-B are not in conformity with the brochure and that VII-A submitted by the petitioner is self-attested one and not issued by competent authority. That as regarding survey number is a non-rectifiable deficiency as per dealer selection guidelines, the petitioner was again requested to furnish documents confirming the status of ownership/lease rights for Survey No.375-15A and resubmit Appendix VII-A & VII-B, being rectifiable one within 21 days by 13.02.2024. In response, the petitioner addressed a letter as regards survey number discrepancy requesting to condone the same and accept the land documents uploaded for Survey No.376-15A and also uploaded VII-A & VII-B and upon verification, it is found that VII-A submitted by the petitioner is again a self-attested one and not issued by competent authority. Therefore, the corporation cancelled the petitioner’s candidature for provisional selection. The corporation had followed the due process of law and Brochure in RC,J

rejecting the petitioner’s candidature and there are no violations as alleged by the petitioner. The writ petition being meritless deserves dismissal.

4. Heard Sri K.Koutilya, learned counsel for petitioner, Smt. M.Uma Devi, learned Central Government Counsel for respondent no.1 and Sri Sai Sanjay Suraneni, learned counsel for respondent nos. 2 and 3.

5. Sri K.Koutilya, learned counsel for petitioner, while reiterating the contents of the writ affidavit would contend that the corporation had cancelled the candidature of the petitioner on 08.02.2024 itself much before the stipulated time of 13.02.2024 specified in the letter and if the authorities are not satisfied with the documents furnished by the petitioner on 08.02.2024, they would have required the petitioner to submit rectified documents, however without doing so the authorities cancelled the candidature of the petitioner much before the due date afforded for furnishing the documents that too on the ground that ‘there was no response’. Therefore, the order impugned is unsustainable and the same has to be set aside. Accordingly, prayed to allow the writ petition.

6. Sri Sai Sanjay Suraneni, learned counsel for respondent nos.2 and 3, while reiterating the contents of the counter affidavit contend that instead of submitting document to substantiate his ownership/lease hold rights over the land mentioned in the application, the petitioner submitted representation to RC,J

condone the typographical error occurred while mentioning the survey number, and further the petitioner again submitted self-attested VII-A but not issued by the authority. He would further contend that the discrepancy as regards the survey number is a non-rectifiable deficiency, whereas the VII-A, though a rectifiable deficiency, was found to be not in conformity with the Brochure and therefore, the authorities had rightly cancelled the candidature of the petitioner by following the due process as per the guidelines and Brochure. The writ petition lacks merit and the same deserves dismissal. Accordingly, prayed to dismiss the writ petition.

7. Perused the material available on record and considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties.

8. There is no dispute that the petitioner was provisionally selected for the Retail Outlet (RO) dealership. Pursuant to this selection, the petitioner remitted the Initial Security Deposit, uploaded the required documents, and subsequently submitted a representation dated 17.12.2023 to Respondent No. 3 seeking the correction of an inadvertent typographical error regarding the survey number of the proposed RO land. In response, Respondent No. 2 sent an email dated 23.01.2024 requesting the petitioner to upload the rectified ownership documents for Survey No. 375-15A, Appendix VIIA (as on the date

RC,J

of application), Appendix VIIB, and the Right of Way (ROW) in Appendix V by 13.02.2024.

9. The petitioner maintains that he uploaded the rectified documents on 08.02.2024. Conversely, the respondents assert in their counter-affidavit that the uploaded documents were found to be deficient, which ultimately led to the issuance of the impugned orders.

10. Notably, the impugned order explicitly states that no response or required documents were received from the petitioner within the stipulated timeframe. Consequently, the contents of the impugned proceedings and the assertions in the counter-affidavit directly contradict each other. While the impugned proceedings ground the rejection on the non-receipt of documents, the counter-affidavit contends that the rejection was due to the documents being deficient.

11. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was granted time until 13.02.2024 to upload the rectified or corrected documents. However, the impugned orders were passed on 08.02.2024, well before the prescribed deadline. The authorities should not have issued the impugned proceedings prior to the expiry of the deadline, and were required to wait until its conclusion. Even if the initially uploaded documents were found deficient, the authorities ought to have waited until the deadline passed, anticipating that the petitioner might upload the correct documents on or before the due date.

RC,J

Consequently, they could not have passed the impugned order cancelling the petitioner's candidature prematurely.

12. Because the impugned orders were issued well before the deadline on the sole ground of non-submission of documents, directly contradicting the counter-affidavit's claim that the uploaded documents were found deficient, they are legally unsustainable and liable to be set aside. It is brought to the notice of this Court that no third party interest is intervened so far in respect of the subject RO.

13. In view of the above, this writ petition is disposed of, setting aside the letter dated 08.02.2024. The petitioner shall submit the documents sought for by the authorities vide letter dated 23.01.2024 within a period of two (02) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. On such, the authorities concerned shall afford an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner, consider and dispose of the same by passing speaking orders and communicate the same to the petitioner, within a period of eight (08) weeks thereafter. There shall be no order as to costs.

Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________________ JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI 9th September, 2026

RR