(Prayer: This Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the impugned order made by the 2nd respondent dated 17.06.2024 in respect of the petitioner's application in HPC16930555866150 and quash the same as illegal and consequently confirm the candidature of the petitioner for Retail Dealership for the location ' within 5 km from Kalayarkoil Village on towards Sivagangai'.)

1. The present writ petition has been filed seeking to quash the order passed by the second respondent on 17.06.2024 wherein the application of the petitioner for award of retail outlet dealership by Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited has been rejected on the ground that the petitioner is not having minimum frontage as specified in the advertisement.

(A).Factual Matrix:

2. The second respondent herein has issued an advertisement on 28.06.2023 for award of retail outlet in Tamil Nadu and Puducherry. As per the said advertisement, only online application should be submitted and no documents or print out of the application should be filed in the office unless requested. The petitioner herein had made an application on 27.08.2023 for the location of 'Within 5 km from Kalayarkoil Village of NH85 towards Sivagangai, Sivagangai District' under open category, the application was scrutinized online.

3. The petitioner being the selected candidate was directed to pay a security deposit of Rs.50,000/- for making field verification of the documents. The petitioner was the only candidate under Group-I category in the advertisement for that location. A perusal of the application reveals that the land that was mentioned in the application belongs to the petitioner's father in Survey Nos.107/3 and 107/4 with a frontage of 35 meters.

4. On 19.10.2023, a communication was sent to the writ petitioner directing him to submit an affidavit, land documents etc. Accordingly, the petitioner has uploaded the same and it was verified on 09.01.2024. The petitioner has deposited the security deposit of on 29.10.2023. The land evaluation was carried out by the committee on 08.06.2024. The committee found that the land offered by the writ petitioner was having only 29 meters of frontage whereas the required frontage is 35 meters. Therefore, the impugned rejection order was passed on 17.06.2024 and the same is under challenge in the present writ petition.

(B).Submissions of the learned counsel appearing on either side:

5. According to the learned counsel for the writ petitioner, his father is the owner of Survey Nos.107/3 and 107/4 at Kollangudi Village, Kalayarkoil Taluk, Sivagangai District and he had obtained an affidavit as per Appendix- III from his father. By mistake, he had not mentioned the Survey No.107/2 for which he had obtained an affidavit from a third party by way of another Appendix-III. If all the three Survey Numbers are put together, the petitioner would be having 35 m. of frontage. By mistake, Survey No.107/2 was not mentioned in the application form. In fact, after the rejection order, he had purchased the same from the third party on 19.07.2024.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner had further submitted that another candidate who had applied under a different category was not able to submit the security deposit. Apart from these two candidates, no other candidate had applied for retail outlet. In such circumstances, no prejudice would be caused to the respondent in awarding the retail outlet to the writ petitioner based upon the Appendix-III affidavit given by the third party or based upon the sale deed dated 19.07.2024. He had further submitted that the respondents cannot stand on technicality, otherwise that would result in loss of business to the second respondent for at least for the next two years. The petitioner is having land with 35 m. of frontage as on today and there is no competition from anyone. By awarding outlet to the petitioner, no other private individual is likely to be affected. Instead of standing on technicality, the respondent authority could consider the application of the writ petitioner and proceed to award the retail outlet.

7. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that the petitioner has applied under Group-I category. Under Group-I category, affidavit and Appendix-III could be obtained only from the blood relatives/family members. In the present case, the petitioner has obtained an affidavit from his father with regard to Survey Nos.107/3 and 107/4 which put together result in frontage of 29m. and not 35m. The petitioner had enclosed another affidavit under Appendix-III from a third party for Survey No.107/2. If the petitioner is utilizing the land of a third party, he should have applied under Group-II. When the petitioner has specifically applied only under Group-I, his application cannot be considered or treated under Group-II. The petitioner not having the required frontage of 35m. as per Appendix-III submitted by the father of the petitioner, is not eligible for being considered and therefore, the impugned order of rejection was issued.

8. The learned counsel for the respondents had relied upon a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2025 INSC 426 ( The General Manager, Business Network Planning (Retail) Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited and another Vs.P.Soundarya) wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that when an application is filed in one Group, it cannot be considered in other Group. Hence, he prayed for sustaining the order passed by the respondents.

9. I have considered the submissions made on either side and perused the material records.

(C).Discussion:

10. A perusal of the application submitted by the writ petitioner clearly reveals that it has been filed under Group-I. Therefore, the petitioner has to submit the documents with regard to the ownership of lands either in his name or in the name of his family members alone. In the present case, the petitioner has submitted an affidavit from his father for Survey Nos.107/3 and 107/4. These two survey numbers put together provide a frontage of 29m. and not 35m. as mandated in the notification.

11. According to the learned counsel for the writ petitioner, he had filed another affidavit under Appendix-III from a third party namely Anandan Pillai for Survey No.107/2. When all these three survey numbers are put together, the frontage would be more than 35m. A perusal of the notification issued by the respondents would clearly reveal that if an applicant wants to consider his application under Group-I, either he should be the owner or his family members should be the owner. Only if the petitioner has applied under Group-II, the land owned by the third party could be included to fulfil the condition of 35m.frontage. In the present case, the petitioner having applied under Group-I category, cannot rely upon the affidavit of a third party under Appendix-III for Survey No.107/2 to achieve the frontage of 35m. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the writ petitioner that when no other applicant is available, his application could be considered at least under Group-II, if not under Group-I.

12. The Hon'ble Supreme Court while considering a similar situation in a judgment reported in 2025 INSC 426 in Paragraph Nos.15 & 18 has held as follows:

               “15. As reproduced above, Clause (k) of the advertisement provides that each applicant has to declare the category under which the land they have offered for the purpose of retail outlet dealership, falls. In doing so, a letter issued by an advocate giving details of current ownership and the documents relied upon to prove the same, also has to be furnished. Further, we find that Clause (d) also lists various documents that the applicant should be in possession of, on the date of the application, serving as proof of ownership of the land. It is clear from the above two requirements that mentioning the incorrect group in the application form is not an exercise in simpliciter and requires the presence/furnishing of various documents. The respondents’ application under Group 2 cannot be a mere error of filling up the form incorrectly, for along with the form documents establishing ownership of land, in case the application is by a person falling under Group 1. The respondent was fully aware of her limitation and, as such, took a chance by filling up the wrong category.

               18. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we conclude that the High Court fell in error directing, as it did, for the respondent’s application to be considered not in the Group in which it was filed but in another one. The appeal is, therefore, allowed and the judgment and order of the High Court with particulars as described in paragraph one is set aside. The appellant shall proceed with the allotment process/formalities in accordance with the Rules and Regulations.”

13. In view of the above said judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it is clear that the application of the petitioner can be considered only under the Group for which it has been applied and not under the another Group. In such circumstances, the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner cannot be countenanced that he should be considered at least under Group-II even though he had applied under Group-I.

(D).Conclusion:

14. In view of the above said deliberations, the order impugned in the writ petition does not suffer from any illegality or irregularity and does not warrant any interference at the hands of this Court. There are no merits in the writ petition and the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.