Direction to decide pending representation against dealership ineligibility in accordance with applicable selection guidelines.

The petitioner applied for a Rural Retail Outlet dealership on 02.09.2023 following an advertisement by Respondent No. 1.

After being provisionally selected and depositing a fee of Rs. 40,000/-, the petitioner received a communication dated 25.02.2026 declaring him ineligible.

The grounds for ineligibility were that the required Affidavit (Appendix-III) was uploaded after the application date.

Pursuant to an opportunity granted in the ineligibility communication, the petitioner submitted a representation on 05.03.2026 to Respondent No. 3 seeking acceptance of the rectified affidavit.

When the representation remained undecided, the petitioner approached the High Court under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India seeking a direction for the respondents to adjudicate his representation.

Whether the Court should exercise its writ jurisdiction to direct Respondent No. 3 to decide the petitioner's pending representation regarding his eligibility for the retail outlet dealership.

Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, which empower the High Court to issue directions to authorities for the enforcement of legal rights.

Guidelines on Selection of Dealers for Regular & Rural Retail Outlets (2023), specifically regarding the procedural requirements for affidavits and the rectification of documents during the selection process.

The Court observed that the petitioner had already followed the procedural recourse provided by the respondents by filing a representation within the stipulated time frame.

During the proceedings, the respondents’ counsel acknowledged that the representation was under consideration and committed to deciding it in accordance with the applicable brochure guidelines within two weeks.

Given that the petitioner limited his prayer to the expeditious disposal of the pending representation, the Court found it unnecessary to adjudicate on the merits of the ineligibility at this stage.

Instead, the Court applied the principle of procedural fairness, ensuring that the administrative body performs its duty to decide representations filed under its own rules.

It directed Respondent No. 3 to decide the petitioner's representation dated 05.03.2026 in accordance with the applicable law, rules, and guidelines expeditiously, preferably within a period of two weeks from the date of the order.

All pending interlocutory applications were likewise disposed of.