A rectifiable Khesra-number discrepancy cannot invalidate candidature where the land’s identity remains established.

The petitioner applied pursuant to BPCL’s advertisement dated 18 June 2017 for LPG Gramin Vitrak distributorship at Rajpur Gram Panchayat, West Champaran, under the OBC category.

He was successful in the draw of lots, deposited the requisite amount, and submitted the required documents.

During verification, a discrepancy was noticed: Khesra No. 259 appeared in the application and registered lease deed, whereas Khesra No. 459 appeared in the Land Possession Certificate.

The petitioner asserted that this was a bona fide typographical error and obtained a registered Correction Deed dated 4 April 2018, along with fresh affidavits and a Land Possession Certificate.

BPCL nevertheless cancelled his candidature on 18 September 2018 on the ground of the mismatch.

During the pendency of the writ petition, BPCL issued further advertisements for a fresh draw for the same location.

The petitioner challenged the cancellation and the subsequent advertisements.

Whether BPCL was justified in cancelling the petitioner’s candidature solely because of the discrepancy between Khesra No. 259 mentioned in the application/lease deed and Khesra No. 459 mentioned in the Land Possession Certificate, despite subsequent rectification through a registered Correction Deed.

Whether the subsequent advertisements and consequential actions for the same LPG distributorship could be sustained during the pendency of the petitioner’s challenge to the cancellation.

The Court applied the principle laid down by the Supreme Court in Rupesh Kumar Verma v. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 2702 of 2022, that a bona fide and rectifiable mistake in the Khata or plot number should not defeat a candidate’s claim where the identity and boundaries of the land remain established and undisputed.

The Court further applied the principle that administrative action based solely on a technical discrepancy must be assessed in light of the substance of the eligibility and identification requirements, particularly where the discrepancy has been subsequently rectified and does not affect the identity of the offered land.

The Court found that the cancellation rested exclusively on the discrepancy in the Khesra number.

It accepted the petitioner’s consistent explanation that the discrepancy was a bona fide mistake, noting that the land remained identifiable and that its boundaries were unchanged.

Applying Rupesh Kumar Verma, the Court held that the error concerned only the description of the land and not its identity.

The registered Correction Deed dated 4 April 2018 and the undisputed boundaries sufficiently addressed the discrepancy.

Accordingly, BPCL ought to have considered the rectification instead of mechanically rejecting the candidature under the applicable guidelines.

BPCL was directed to reconsider the petitioner’s candidature in accordance with the principle laid down in Rupesh Kumar Verma and proceed according to law.

Any consequential action arising from the subsequent advertisements for the same location was made subject to the decision taken pursuant to the Court’s directions.

The writ petition was accordingly allowed.