Subsequent rectification cannot cure failure to satisfy mandatory land eligibility on the application’s last date.

Pursuant to an advertisement dated 28 June 2013, the petitioner applied for an LPG dealership under the Rajiv Gandhi Gramin LPG Vitrak Scheme for Chandpur, Katihar, under the OBC category. He was successful in the draw of lots held on 12 December 2013 and deposited ₹20,000 as required.

During Field Verification of Credentials, the Corporation found that the land offered by him was deficient in area and, by communication dated 26 September 2014, asked him to furnish alternative land satisfying the prescribed requirements.

The petitioner claimed to have purchased additional land and relied upon a rectification deed concerning the area of the originally offered land. However, by letter dated 29 August 2016, the Corporation rejected his candidature on the ground that he did not own the requisite land at the advertised location as on the last date for submission of applications.

The petitioner challenged the rejection under Article 226 of the Constitution, seeking a direction for grant of the dealership and interim protection against grant of the dealership to another person.

The Corporation contended that selection in the draw was conditional upon successful Field Verification and that the petitioner’s land did not satisfy the mandatory eligibility criteria.

1. Whether the petitioner acquired an enforceable right to grant of the LPG dealership merely by being successful in the draw of lots, when his selection was subject to successful Field Verification of Credentials.

2. Whether the Corporation was justified in rejecting the petitioner’s candidature because the land offered did not satisfy the prescribed dimensions and was not owned by him at the advertised location on the last date for submission of the application.

3. Whether the Corporation’s request for alternative land or the petitioner’s subsequent rectification deed created a legitimate expectation or otherwise cured the eligibility defect existing on the relevant date.

The Court applied the principle that a public-sector corporation functioning as “State” under Article 12 must act fairly, reasonably and uniformly, but must also adhere strictly to the eligibility standards and conditions specified in its advertisement. Any relaxation or deviation may produce an arbitrary and subjective selection process.

The Court relied on M/s Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. v. Raj Kumar Jha, 2012 (2) PLJR 783, which held that the Corporation must uniformly follow the standards prescribed in the advertisement and may reject an application that does not conform to them.

It also relied on the order in LPA No. 925 of 2012, Mukesh Pandey v. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation, as cited by the respondents.

The Court further applied the rule that success in a draw of lots is provisional where the advertisement makes it subject to Field Verification of Credentials, and that eligibility must exist on the last date of submission of the application.

The Court found that the petitioner’s declared land dimensions of 22 metres × 27 metres were not borne out during verification, when the actual dimensions were found to be 21 metres × 23.13 metres, thereby failing to satisfy the minimum prescribed requirement.

His selection in the draw did not confer a vested right because it was expressly subject to successful Field Verification.

Although the Corporation gave him an opportunity to establish eligibility through alternative land, he failed to produce the necessary supporting documents.

The subsequent rectification deed could not retrospectively cure the deficiency because the petitioner did not possess the requisite qualifying land at the relevant stage—namely, the last date for submission of the application.

Applying the principle of strict and uniform adherence to the advertisement conditions, the Court held that accepting the subsequently asserted land or rectification deed would amount to an impermissible relaxation and could undermine fairness to other applicants.

The Corporation had therefore acted in accordance with the applicable guidelines and had afforded the petitioner sufficient opportunity before rejecting his candidature.

The Corporation was justified in rejecting his application because the offered land failed the prescribed dimensions and the subsequent alternative land and rectification deed could not cure the defect existing on the last date of application.

Finding no arbitrariness or illegality warranting interference under Article 226, the Court dismissed the writ petition and disposed of any pending interlocutory applications.