ORDER : 1. The instant petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 20.03.2018 (Annex.22) wherein the respondents - Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited (for short, “BPCL” or “Corporation”) has rejected the grievance/complaint raised by the petitioner in respect of the entitlement of dealership in favour of one Satyanarayan Lohar (Respondent No.9). The impugned order communicates that the complaint of the petitioner was examined and on investigation, the allegations levelled by the petitioner, were not found factually correct. 2. The petitioner in the instant petition prays that the impugned order dated 20.03.2018 and Letter of Intent (LoI) may be quashed and set aside and further, the petitioner may be considered for allotment of petrol pump. 3. This Court, while issuing notices on 02.05.2018, passed an ex parte interim order whereby the respondents were restrained from proceeding in the matter of award of retail outlet dealership at the Village Jasala Main Road, District Dungarpur OBC category in furtherance of the advertisement dated 08.07.2014. 4. The facts, in nutshell, as pleaded in the writ petition are that the BPCL has issued an advertisement dated 08.07.2014 for allotment of retail outlet dealership. The petitioner finding himself to be fully eligible applied for the said dealership and the private respondent (Satyanarayan Lohar) had also filled the form and participated in the process for award of dealership. It is pleaded in the petition that the private respondent was declared successful in the draw of lottery and as such, the respondents - Corporation decided to award the retail outlet in favour of the private respondent. 5. The petitioner in his petition has alleged that the requirement for setting up the retail outlet was provided in the advertisement and as per the said requirement, the area must be of 35 x 35 meters. 6. The allegation of the petitioner is with respect to the entitlement of the private respondent, as he is not fulfilling the requirement of possessing the land. The petitioner has pleaded in his petition that the details as mentioned in the application filed by the Pvt. Respondent were as under:- “* Location of the land : On Jasela Road, 600 MT from mile stone namely Chikhli 4 Km. * Khasra No. : 1438/1436/1162 & 1437/1163 (hereinafter referred to as “the land in question”) * Frontage : 36.57 MT * Depth in Meter: 35 MT (After 15.5 mt. * Khasra No. : 1438/1436/1162 & 1437/1163 (hereinafter referred to as “the land in question”) * Frontage : 36.57 MT * Depth in Meter: 35 MT (After 15.5 mt. from the centre of the road) * Total Area: 1279.95 Sq. Mt.” 7. The petitioner has pleaded that after perusing the Land Evaluation Committee (for short “LEC”) report, he found a major discrepancy in the LEC report and the land offered by the private respondent was earmarked while considering the width of road as 25 meters, whereas during the relevant time, i.e., 09.06.2015, the concerned road was declared as State Highway No. 91 (Dhariawad to Peeth). The further submission of the petitioner is that in the LEC report, the frontage of road was shown as 36 meters, which was absolutely contrary to the record available with the Tehsildar. The petitioner has alleged in the petition that it was expected from the BPCL that while preparing the LEC report, the width of the road ought to have been considered as 40 meters instead of 25 meters. The petitioner has also placed on record a certificate issued by PWD declaring the said road as State Highway No. 91. 8. The petitioner has pleaded in his petitioner that after coming to know the aforesaid discrepancy, he had to make a complaint before BPCL requesting them to undertake preparation of LEC report and the complaint so filed was further reiterated by reminders sent to the BPCL Officers. 9. The petitioner has alleged that the various revenue authorities themselves were writing each other with respect to not fulfilling the requirement of possessing the land in question by the private respondent. The petitioner has placed on record the order dated 06.02.2017 wherein the Tehsildar had constituted a committee at the request of BPCL with respect to the area in question as possessed by the private respondent. The petitioner has further placed on record a letter dated 08.02.2017 written by the Tehsildar to the BPCL Officer with respect to the report said to be prepared. The petitioner further places reliance on a report prepared by the Tehsildar and communicated to the Corporation vide communication dated 16.02.2017. The petitioner has further placed on record a letter dated 08.02.2017 written by the Tehsildar to the BPCL Officer with respect to the report said to be prepared. The petitioner further places reliance on a report prepared by the Tehsildar and communicated to the Corporation vide communication dated 16.02.2017. The petitioner alleges in the petition that at one point of time, the land which was measured as on 15.02.2017 as per the coordinates, the requirement of having minimum 35 meter on front and 35 meter in depth was not fulfilled as in the site map prepared on 15.02.2017, the land, at one point was shown to be measuring 33.2 meter on the back side of the plot and the said report could not be ignored by the Corporation while taking the final decision. 10. The petitioner has further placed reliance on the letters written by Tehsildar to SDO, Sagwada dated 16.03.2017 where the request for making necessary corrections in the revenue record was also said to be made. The petitioner also refers to an affidavit dated 22.03.2017 filed by one Manjula where, she herself claims corrections in the revenue record. The petitioner further refers to letter dated 05.04.2017 prepared by Tehsildar wherein it is revealed that the public road belonging to PWD forms part of khasras in question and as such, the direction was sought from SDO with respect to measurement of the land. 11. The learned counsel Mr. O.P. Mehta appearing for the petitioner submitted that in spite of all the communications written by one Revenue Officer to another Revenue Officer and at one point of time, report was being given against the private respondent, his complaint was wrongly rejected, without considering the relevant facts and further, the BPCL Officers acted in a malafide manner to confer undue advantage in favour of the private respondent. The learned counsel Mr. Mehta submitted that the impugned order has been passed without considering the entire facts and the same shows non-application of mind. Mr. Mehta submitted that the petitioner was not afforded even any opportunity of personal audience or opportunity of hearing before passing the impugned order while rejecting the complaint filed by the petitioner. Mr. The learned counsel Mr. Mehta submitted that the impugned order has been passed without considering the entire facts and the same shows non-application of mind. Mr. Mehta submitted that the petitioner was not afforded even any opportunity of personal audience or opportunity of hearing before passing the impugned order while rejecting the complaint filed by the petitioner. Mr. Mehta has further submitted that the impugned order does not make any reference of earlier reports or even the litigation pending in respect of the same land and as such, the order is vitiated and not sustainable in the eyes of law. 12. The learned counsel Mr. Mehta further submitted that the dispute with regard to the same piece of land, i.e., the plot where the private respondent wants to set up his retail outlet is subject matter of litigation. Mr. Mehta has referred to an order passed by the SDO, Sagwara, District Dungarpur dated 31.07.2017 wherein the suit filed by one Satynarayan has been decreed and the corrections are ordered to be made in a registered document and further amended order is to be issued. 13. Mr. Mehta has submitted that against the order passed by the SDO, Sagwara, the land holder - Tehsildar has filed an appeal before the Revenue Appellate Authority, Udaipur (for short “RAA”) and the same is said to be pending. Mr. Mehta submitted that the petitioner also felt aggrieved against the order passed by the SDO, Sagwara and an appeal was preferred before the RAA and the RAA vide order dated 20.12.2017 has dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner. Mr. Mehta submitted that the petitioner had no option expect to approach the Board of Revenue challenging the order of SDO as well as of RAA and the Board of Revenue has also dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner. 14. The learned counsel Mr. Mehta submitted that in wake of litigation in respect of the same piece of land, the BPCL ought to have stayed its hands off from allotting the retail outlet and the undue favour conferred in favour of the private respondent needs to be set aside by this Court. 15. The respondents No. 5 to 8 - Corporation have filed reply to the writ petition. Mr. 15. The respondents No. 5 to 8 - Corporation have filed reply to the writ petition. Mr. Vinay Kothari, learned counsel appearing for the respondents - Corporation submitted that the petition suffers from serious defect of concealment of facts and the petitioner has not placed on record the complete facts. Learned counsel further submitted that if the petitioner has already approached the revenue authorities by assailing the order passed by the SDO, who permitted correction in the revenue record, the petitioner cannot maintain the present writ petition and after dismissal of appeal by the Board of Revenue, this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution cannot be asked to decide the orders which have been passed by the revenue authorities while exercising the judicial powers. 16. Learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner even cannot be permitted to raise all these pleas and the orders passed by the revenue authorities as the order of SDO, RAA and the Board of Revenue are not under challenge in the instant writ petition and the learned counsel for the petitioner may not be permitted to address this Court on these issues. 17. The learned counsel for the respondents on merits of the case submitted that initially the report which is sought to be relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner was prepared by the coordinates - the officials of the Corporation, without considering the actual/physical position of the land. The learned counsel further submitted that the Corporation had requested the revenue authorities to a have proper inspection, demarcation and position of the land. The learned counsel submitted that after letter being written by the Officials of the Corporation, the Tehsildar vide his order dated 15.01.2018 (Annex.R/5/1) had sent the report and it was specifically mentioned that the kharsa No. 1437/1163 and khasra No. 1438/1162 measuring 0.15 and 0.15 respectively were converted for abadi purposes in revenue records and the site plan was prepared on 10.01.2018. The Tehsildar also annexed the map of site plan which was prepared on 10.01.2018 in the presence of Patwari and Tehsildar himself. The said map has been placed on record along with letter and it shows that the dimensions of the plot in question is 35 meters in width and 70 meters in depth and at the back side of the plot in question, the measurement is 35 meters. 18. The said map has been placed on record along with letter and it shows that the dimensions of the plot in question is 35 meters in width and 70 meters in depth and at the back side of the plot in question, the measurement is 35 meters. 18. The learned counsel submitted that once the Corporation has the correct information from the revenue authorities and these reports were sought in the month of January, 2018 and accordingly the order dated 20.03.2018 rejecting the complaint of the petitioner was passed. 19. The learned counsel submitted that the letters which are sought to be referred by the learned counsel for the petitioner are the letters which were the inter-departmental letters written by one revenue authority to another revenue authority and are of no consequence. The learned counsel further submitted that this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution would not like to give finding on disputed questions of facts which are sought to be raised by the petitioner in the instant writ petition. 20. The learned counsel submitted that the complaint filed by the petitioner has been looked into by the competent authorities and if the private respondent meets the land evaluation correctly, the same cannot be questioned by an applicant who remained unsuccessful in draw of lottery. The learned counsel further submitted that the report of the revenue authorities which were ultimately subject matter of challenge by the petitioner, cannot be looked into by this Court as there is no prayer in the petition and furthermore, the scope of the writ petition is entirely different. The learned counsel submitted that if the petitioner had any grievance in respect of the orders passed by the SDO with respect to corrections in the revenue record, the remedy lies somewhere else and not in the present writ petition. 21. The learned counsel Mr. Hemant Ballani appearing for the private respondent No. 9 submitted that the private respondent fulfills the requisite eligibility and as such, the present writ petition which has been filed by the petitioner is totally devoid of merit and the same should be treated as frivolous petition. The learned counsel submits that the allotment in favour of private respondent is being questioned without any justification and it is in fact an act of arm twisting by the petitioner. 22. The learned counsel Mr. The learned counsel submits that the allotment in favour of private respondent is being questioned without any justification and it is in fact an act of arm twisting by the petitioner. 22. The learned counsel Mr. Mehta appearing for the petitioner, confronted with the situation of not challenging the orders passed by the revenue authorities made a request before this Court that some time may be granted to amend the writ petition to assail the orders passed by the SDO, RAA and the Board of Revenue. 23. This Court considered the request of the learned counsel for the petitioner and found that the scope of the present writ petition is only with regard to the impugned order which has been issued by the BPCL where the complaint filed by the petitioner with respect to eligibility of the private respondent, has been dismissed. This Court finds that if the petitioner had any grievance against the orders passed by the revenue authorities, the same ought to have been challenged in a separate proceeding. This Court considering the scope of the present writ petition, is afraid to allow the request of the petitioner and as such, the same is declined. 24. The question in the instant writ petition is with regard to eligibility of private respondent, as to whether he fulfills the eligibility of possessing the land required for setting up of a retail outlet, this Court finds that once the Corporation has got the survey conducted by the revenue authorities and it has been reported to the Corporation that the petitioner has requisite piece of land - plot and as such, no fault can be found with the decision of the Corporation in considering the private respondent eligible for the purpose of setting up a retail outlet. The report which has been sought by the respondents – Corporation clearly provides that the Tehsildar and Patwari concerned had gone to the site and found that the land in question is adequate for the purpose of setting up of a petrol pump. 25. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Mehta that various letters written by Tehsildar, SDO and other authorities informing the BPCL that the private respondent does not meet the criteria, this Court finds little substance in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner. 25. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Mehta that various letters written by Tehsildar, SDO and other authorities informing the BPCL that the private respondent does not meet the criteria, this Court finds little substance in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner. This Court finds that the report which has been prepared in the month of January, 2018 and communicated vide letter dated 10.01.2018 makes it clear that the private respondent meets the requirement as desired by the Corporation. 26. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Mehta that the dispute is still pending with regard to the land in question as the order of SDO passed as a decree is under challenge before the RAA, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that the order of the SDO has already been complied with and as such, it cannot be said with certainty, as to whether any substance remained in the appeal said to be filed by the land holder - Tehsildar. 27. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Mehta that the respondents have not afforded any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner before passing the impugned order and further, there is no reference of the reports which have been received by them and such report being prepared behind the back of the petitioner, this Court finds that the petitioner has made his complaint and his complaint has been dismissed by the BPCL and the same has been communicated to the petitioner by the communication dated 20.03.2018, no grievance can be allowed to be raised by the petitioner that he was not heard in-person. This Court further finds that it was not incumbent on the part of the Corporation to pass a detailed order by giving all the reasons while dismissing the complaint of the petitioner and the grievance of the petitioner was with regard to eligibility of the private respondent of not possessing the requisite piece of land and the same has been answered by the BPCL while communicating to the petitioner that his complaint is without any substance. The impugned order further makes a reference that investigation has been done in the matter and accordingly decision has been taken by the Corporation. 28. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. The impugned order further makes a reference that investigation has been done in the matter and accordingly decision has been taken by the Corporation. 28. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Mehta that the land in question is still disputed, this Court finds that the petitioner has already lost his battle before the Board of Revenue and now at this junction, he cannot be permitted to raise any ground with respect to validity of such orders in the instant writ petition. 29. In view of the above, this Court finds that the present writ petition is devoid of any merit and the same is accordingly dismissed. 30. The interim order granted by this Court on 02.05.2018, accordingly, also stands vacated.