Judgment : In response to the advertisement issued by the Indian Oil Corporation Limited (for short ‘the Corporation’), the petitioner and respondent No.4 applied for award of retail outlet dealership for sale ofdiesel at Sultanabad Village on the road leading to Peddapalli road in Karimnagar District. Following the evaluation of the credentials of the petitioner and respondent No.4, the Corporation has empanelled both the applicants. Eventually, the petitioner was declared as not qualified and respondent No.4 was assigned rank No.1. Questioning this action, the petitioner filed this writ petition. The petitioner has initially approached the Corporation for redressal of her grievance under Clause 18 of the Dealer Selection Guidelines (for short ‘the Guidelines’). As no response was forthcoming from the Corporation, she has filed the present writ petition. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that during the pendency of the writ petition, the Corporation has informed the petitioner that it has closed her grievance. Even though the same has not been filed, at the hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner has placed the said communication before the Court. The main grievance of the petitioner is that even though the land offered by the petitioner belongs to her father in law and she has complied with the requirements of Clause 14 (b) of the Guidelines i.e., ‘firm offer of land’, she was awarded ‘0’ marks under the parameter ‘land and infrastructure’, while respondent No.4 was awarded 24.50 marks by treating her offer of the land under the head ‘firm offer of land’ and not as the owner of the land so offered. In the Communication, vide letter dated 01.10.2012, issued on behalf of the Corporation informing the petitioner that her complaint was closed, it is stated that the petitioner has enclosed in her application an affidavit from one Deshopanthula Krishna Murthy, who is not a member of the family unit as defined under 2(e)(i) of the advertisement and that therefore, giving ‘0’ marks to her is correct. The counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the Corporation is also in the same tone and tenor. Sri P.Prabhakar, learned counsel for the respondent Corporation, has fairly submitted that the petitioner was not awarded marks under the parameter ‘land and infrastructure’ for the reason that her father in law, who is admittedly the owner, is not included in the definition of ‘family’. Sri P.Prabhakar, learned counsel for the respondent Corporation, has fairly submitted that the petitioner was not awarded marks under the parameter ‘land and infrastructure’ for the reason that her father in law, who is admittedly the owner, is not included in the definition of ‘family’. However, the respondent Corporation has failed to consider the offer made by the petitioner under the head ‘firm offer of land’ as envisaged under 14(b) of the Guidelines. It is, therefore, necessary to consider the said Clause, which reads as under: 14. PREFERENCE FOR APPLICANTS OFFERING SUITABLE LAND Availability of suitable land for setting up of KSK retail outlet at the advertised location is the essence of the project. Wherever IOC expects the applicant to have/arrange suitable land for the dealership, the same is mentioned against each location in the advertisement. The suitability of land will be assessed by IOC as per norms given in para 15 of Brochure. The land and details offered along with the application alone will be considered for this purpose and applicant will not be given the opportunity to offer any other land subsequently. The land offered by the applicant can be in either of following category: (a) Owned land: The following will be considered as owned land: (i) Land owned by the applicant exclusively (ii) Land owned by the “family” members exclusively (iii) Land owned by the applicant exclusively with “family” members (iv) Land owned by the applicant along with others provided share of applicant in the land meets IOC’s requirements. The land falling in category (ii), (iii) & (iv) will be considered as belonging to the applicant subject to applicant producing the consent on notarized affidavit signed by all other co-owners. The definition of “Family unit” will be as per para 6 of Brochure. In addition to above, for locations to be developed as Dealer Owned site (marked ‘Yes’ in column 6 of advertisement), the land on long term lease (for a minimum period of 19 yrs 11 months) will also be considered as owned land subject to above conditions. In other words, for locations to be developed as Corporation Owned site (where ‘Yes’ is marked in column 5 of advertisement), leased land will not be considered. In other words, for locations to be developed as Corporation Owned site (where ‘Yes’ is marked in column 5 of advertisement), leased land will not be considered. (a) Firm Offer of land: In addition to land covered under para (a) above, applicants also have the option to offer land with firm offer of land from land owner/s. Such offer from land owner/s should be in the form of notarized affidavit giving details of land, khasra/khatauni no., name of village/location, ownership details etc., NOTE: (i) However, if an applicant, after selection on the above basis, is unable to provide the land indicated in the application within a period of TWO months from the date of Letter of Intent (LOI), IOCL will have the right to cancel the allotment of dealership made to the applicant. The suitability of the Land will be decided by IOCL. In this case IOC will provide all fixed facilities at its cost at the site so taken from the applicant on purchase/long term lease basis. However, there is no commitment from IOCL for taking he offered Land from the applicant. (ii) Wherever IOC has advertised that it also expects the applicant to provide suitable land at the advertised location to IOC on sale/long lease, their willingness to transfer such land to IOC should be clearly indicated in the application under Para 12(f). Considering the location of the land from the point of view of suitability from technical and commercial angle and rates applicable to IOC, applicants willing to transfer the land on ownership/long term lease to IOC would be considered. However, there is no commitment from IOC for taking the offered Land from the applicant. (iii) Documents For Offered Land The applicant should furnish at least one of the following document (in support of ownership) which should have been issued/revalidated on or after date of advertisement: (i) Khasra/Khatuni or any equivalent revenue document or certificate from revenue official confirming the status of ownership of the land. Or (ii) Registered sale deed/Registered lease deed or any other type of ownership transfer deed/document in favour of applicant. It is discernable from the reading of the above Clause that if a person cannot be treated as the owner, the land offered by him can be treated under the head ‘firm offer of land’ provided the requirements of Clause 14(b) of the Guidelines reproduced above are satisfied. It is discernable from the reading of the above Clause that if a person cannot be treated as the owner, the land offered by him can be treated under the head ‘firm offer of land’ provided the requirements of Clause 14(b) of the Guidelines reproduced above are satisfied. These requirements are that the owner of the land should give notarized affidavit giving the details of the land, khasra/khatuni number, name of the village, location, ownership details etc., Note (iii) of Clause 14 (b) of the Guidelines, which is very relevant for the present purpose and which envisages furnishing of documents, comprises two limbs i.e., (i) and (ii). Under the first limb, the applicant shall produce khasra/khatuni or any equivalent revenue document or certificate from revenue official confirming the status of ownership of the land. Under the second limb, the applicant shall produce the registered sale deed or registered lease deed or any other type of ownership transfer deed or document in favour of the applicant. The requirement of Clause 14(b) Note (iii) of the Guidelines will be satisfied if the applicant produces either of the two sets of the documents mentioned in Note (iii) (i) or Note (iii) (ii). It is not necessary that both sets of documents need to be produced by the applicant for treating his offer under the head ‘firm offer of land’. Indisputably, the petitioner has satisfied the requirements of filing of notarized affidavit of her father in law, who is admittedly the owner of the property, and also filing khatuni, which is one of the prescribed documents under Note (iii)(i) of Clause 14(b) of the Guidelines. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled to award of marks under the parameter ‘land and infrastructure’, treating the offer as the ‘firm offer of land’ for which the maximum marks of 25 are prescribed. The respondent Corporation has, therefore, committed a serious error in awarding ‘0” marks to the petitioner under this parameter. For the foregoing reasons, the Writ Petition is allowed by directing the respondent Corporation to reconsider the petitioner’s case for award of marks under the parameter ‘land and infrastructure’ by treating her offer under the head ‘firm offer of land’ and revise the merit panel. As a sequel to allowing the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.32101 of 2013 filed by the petitioner for interim relief shall stand disposed of as infructuous.