Adherence to Mandatory Dealership Guidelines Requiring Lease Execution by All Co-owners Is Non-Curable and Binding

The petitioner applied for a Retail Outlet (RO) dealership under an advertisement dated 28.06.2023 for a location in District Sheopur.

On 19.06.2024, she was provisionally selected. To meet land requirements, she submitted a registered lease deed dated 25.09.2023 for Survey No. 336.

On 04.04.2026, the respondents rejected her candidature on the ground that the lease deed was not executed by all co-owners of the land as required by dealership guidelines.

The petitioner contended that an oral partition had occurred and she had obtained consent affidavits from other co-owners, which the respondents failed to consider in her representation dated 14.04.2026.

1. Whether the respondents committed an illegality or acted arbitrarily in rejecting the petitioner’s candidature due to the lease deed not being executed by all registered co-owners.

Clause 4(vi)(a) of the "Guidelines on Selection of Dealers for Regular and Rural Retail Outlets," which mandates that if offered land is held by multiple owners on a long-term lease, the deed must be executed by all co-owners.

The rule specifies that failure to comply results in the lease deed being treated as "invalid".

The court also reaffirmed the principle that eligibility must be determined based on documents existing as of the date of the application and that revenue entries (or lack of updated entries reflecting partition) are the standard for determining recorded ownership.

The Court observed that the land in Survey No. 336 was jointly recorded in the names of multiple owners in the revenue records.

While the petitioner argued that a partition had taken place, the Court noted that such partition was neither informed to nor recorded in the revenue records, meaning there was no official sub-division to ascertain the exclusive title of the executants.

The Court reasoned that Clause 4(vi)(a) is mandatory and explicitly provides the consequence of invalidity for non-compliance.

Furthermore, the Court held that subsequent consent affidavits or representations cannot cure an inherent defect in the lease deed that existed on the date of the application.

By adhering to the guidelines uniformly, the respondents' actions were found to be non-arbitrary.

The court concluded that since the mandatory requirement of execution by all co-owners was not met, the lease was invalid.

Consequently, the Writ Petition was dismissed with no order as to costs.