JUDGMENT : M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY, J. 1. This writ appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent is preferred by the Indian Oil Corporation Limited and two others against the order dated 16.04.2021 passed in W.P. No. 8450 of 2019, whereunder the learned single Judge while holding that the rejection of application of the writ petitioner on the ground of non-mentioning of survey number is illegal, directed respondent Nos. 1 to 3 therein to entrust the dealership of Retail Outlet at Koduru on Vullipalem Road, Koduru Mandal, Krishna District, to the writ petitioner by completing the formalities and by terminating the dealership of the 5th respondent therein in two weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order. 2. The 1st appellant-Indian Oil Corporation issued a notification for appointment of retail outlet at Koduru village, Koduru Mandal, Krishna District under Scheduled Caste (SC) category on 25.11.2018 vide paper publication in Eenadu Telugu daily. The writ petitioner being a member of Scheduled Caste community and having possessed requisite qualification, submitted online application dated 22.12.2018 annexing requisite documents vide reference application No. 15454925764175 and also in physical form dated 13.02.2019. The 1st appellant-Corporation conducted draw of lots of all applications on 06.02.2019 and selected the writ petitioner as eligible for allotment of dealership for the above mentioned location. On 09.02.2019, the 1st appellant-Corporation sent an e-mail directing the writ petitioner to submit relevant documents and other information and the writ petitioner obliged and submitted the same on 13.02.2019 to one Mr. Srivardhan Reddy, Senior Manager, IOCL Divisional Office at Vijayawada. During scrutiny, it was found that the writ petitioner mentioned wrong survey number of the offered land (mentioned registered document number instead of survey number), and the same was intimated to the writ petitioner and thereafter, the 1st appellant Corporation selected the 3rd respondent for allotment of dealership. Challenging the same, the writ petitioner filed the writ petition on the ground that there was a typographical mistake and it is not a ground to reject his application for allotment of dealership of IOCL Retail Outlet at Koduru, whereas respondent Nos. 1 to 3 in the writ petition (appellants herein) raised a contention that it is not a rectifiable mistake and it is a ground to reject the application. 3. 1 to 3 in the writ petition (appellants herein) raised a contention that it is not a rectifiable mistake and it is a ground to reject the application. 3. The learned single Judge relying upon the principle laid down in Rajesh Parmar vs. Under Secretary, Petroleum Corporation, MANU/MP/0121/2019 and having concluded that the application of the writ petitioner was unjustly and illegally rejected by the 1st appellant-Corporation, issued the directions referred to above. Aggrieved by the order of the learned single Judge, the present appeal is preferred on various grounds. 4. The main ground urged by the appellants is that as per clause (p) of List of Non-Rectifiable Deficiencies, which indicates that change in Khasra No/Khatouni/Gut No/Survey No etc. of offered land is non-rectifiable, non-mentioning of survey number is a non-rectifiable defect and it is a ground for rejecting the application of the petitioner. It is also contended that as per Clause No. 22 of the Guidelines on Selection of Dealers for Regular and Rural Retail Outlets Through Draw of Lots/Bidding Process, if any statement made in the application or in the documents enclosed therewith or subsequently submitted in pursuance of the application by the candidate at any stage is found to have been suppressed/misrepresented/incorrect or false, then the application is liable to be rejected without assigning any reason and in case, the applicant has been appointed as a dealer, the dealership is liable to be terminated, but this guideline was not considered by the learned single Judge. 5. It is also contended that no fundamental rights of the writ petitioner are infringed on account of rejection of his application and therefore, the order of the learned single Judge is illegal. It is also contended that the issuance of direction by the learned single Judge to terminate the dealership of the 3rd respondent herein and allot the same to the writ petitioner is illegal for the reason that the entire process of scrutiny for allotment of dealership to the writ petitioner is not completed as on date and therefore, requested to set aside the same. 6. 6. The first and foremost contention raised by the appellants is that as per clause (p) of List of Non-Rectifiable Deficiencies, non-mentioning of survey number is incurable and it is one of the non-rectifiable deficiencies and the writ petitioner mentioned wrong survey number and therefore, there is no illegality in rejecting the application of the petitioner. 7. According to the learned counsel for the writ petitioner, typographical mistake was crept in the application and it is only accidental mistake and it will never be a ground to reject the application for the reason that the petitioner mentioned the registered document number instead of survey number. The writ petitioner had not intended to change the survey number to attract non-rectifiable deficiencies under clause (p), but he wrongly mentioned registered document number instead of survey number. It does not amount to change of survey number to attract non-rectifiable deficiencies pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellants. In any view of the matter, when the land offered by the writ petitioner is identifiable with reference to the document number and its boundaries, it will never be a ground to reject the application of the writ petitioner and it does not constitute any non-rectifiable deficiency. 8. Perusal of the order under appeal goes to show that similar issue came up for consideration before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in Rajesh Parmar case and the Court held as under: “It is also true that in response to invitation of applications through paper publication for allotment of petrol pump outlets, offers made by the applicants and acceptance thereof are in the realm of commercial transactions guided by the principles of Indian Contract Act, at the same time, the process of selection must be in conformity with the concept of reasonableness on the touchstone of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Fairness is the basic requirement of principle of natural justice; sine qua-non of rule of law. There is no dispute that the land offered by the petitioner is in conformity with the requirements under the advertisement as regards its dimensions and location. However, inadvertence or clerical error occurred in the description of land in the application could not have been stretched too far to conclude that the land offered is at variance with the survey number mentioned in the application to declare the applicant not eligible for allotment of petrol pump. However, inadvertence or clerical error occurred in the description of land in the application could not have been stretched too far to conclude that the land offered is at variance with the survey number mentioned in the application to declare the applicant not eligible for allotment of petrol pump. Such recourse adopted by the HPCL purportedly relying upon the aforesaid quoted last lines of Annexure R/4 is in conflict with the Wednesbury principles of reasonableness lucidly explained by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in catena of cases.” In view of the law laid down by the Madhya Pradesh High Court, which is applicable to the present facts and circumstances of the case, non-mentioning of survey number is not a ground to reject the application of the writ petitioner. 9. The learned counsel for the appellants has drawn our attention to the judgment of the High Court of Patna in Indian Oil Corporation Limited and Another vs. Raj Kumar Jha, (2012) 2 PLJR 783 , wherein the Patna High Court held as under: “8. We are of the opinion that the Corporation being the State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution is supposed to act fairly, reasonably and uniformly and has to be objective in its approach. Once the standard is set out in the advertisement, the Corporation has to adhere to the said standard without any variation. In case, the Corporation allows any alteration the same will amount to subjective approach which is frowned upon by the Courts time and again. To remain objective the Corporation is required to adhere to the standards mentioned in the advertisement. In the present case, it is not in dispute that the application made by the writ petitioner was not in conformation with the requirements mentioned in the advertisement. In our opinion, the Corporation was justified in rejecting the application of the writ petitioner. 9. The learned single Judge ought not to have interfered with the decision of the Corporation which was taken in consonance with the terms and conditions contained in the advertisement. Besides; may be, in the present case it was a mere typographical error. However, there might be a case of mischief or misrepresentation also. It is difficult to draw a line where an error ends and a mischief or misrepresentation begins. The best way to avoid discrimination is strict adherence to the standards mentioned in the advertisement. Besides; may be, in the present case it was a mere typographical error. However, there might be a case of mischief or misrepresentation also. It is difficult to draw a line where an error ends and a mischief or misrepresentation begins. The best way to avoid discrimination is strict adherence to the standards mentioned in the advertisement. For the aforesaid reasons we hold that the Corporation was justified in rejecting the application of the writ petitioner. The Appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment and order dated 28th January 2010 passed by the learned single Judge in CWJC No. 13196 of 2009 is set aside. CWJC No. 13196 is dismissed.” The facts in the above case are different from the facts of the present case. But the judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Rajesh Parmar case is almost identical to the present facts of the case. 10. In any view of the matter, as per the settled law, when there is a mistake in survey number, extent and boundaries will prevail. In the present case, the document number mentioned contains the details like boundaries and survey number of the land. Therefore, the land offered by the writ petitioner can be identified. 11. The appellants mentioned the following reasons for rejection of the application of the writ petitioner vide letter dated 23.06.2019, which was challenged in the writ petition: “Dear Sir, 1. Please refer to your application received by us as Application Form No. 15454925764175 on the subject. 2. Please also refer to our letter dated 09-Feb-2019 and wherein you were advised to submit certain documents. 3. However, it is observed that land documents submitted by you are not valid for considering the offered land under Group 1. 4. In view of the above, we regret to inform you that your candidature has been found ineligible. However, your candidature may get considered for selection along with Group 3 applicants as per guidelines.” 12. Perusal of the letter challenged before the learned single Judge indicates that the authorities observed that the documents submitted by the petitioner are not valid for considering the offered land under Group I. It is also alleged that the candidature of the petitioner has been found ineligible and his candidature may get considered for selection along with Group 3 applicants as per the guidelines. Rejection of application is not on the ground of mentioning of wrong survey number. It is stated in the above letter that the documents submitted by the writ petitioner are not valid for consideration. So, the reason assigned for rejection of the application of the writ petitioner is vague. Therefore, it did not stand to scrutiny to uphold the contention of the appellants. Even otherwise, Clause 22 of the guidelines indicates that if it is found by the authorities that the candidate has suppressed/misrepresented/incorrect or false, then, the application is liable to be rejected without any reason. It is not a case of submitting any incorrect or false information along with the application. But instead of mentioning survey number, the writ petitioner mentioned registered document number. Therefore, it cannot be held that the writ petitioner submitted incorrect/false information which enables the appellants herein to reject the application of the petitioner invoking clause 22 of the guidelines. The grounds raised for rejection of the application of the writ petitioner are illegal, and therefore, persuading by the judgment of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in Rajesh Parmar, the learned single Judge rightly concluded that the rejection is not in accordance with law. 13. Yet another contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellants is that the direction issued by the learned single Judge is illegal for the reason that the entire process of scrutiny is not completed for allotment of dealership or for issuing LOI to the writ petitioner after terminating the dealership of the 3rd respondent herein. No doubt, as per the direction issued by the learned single Judge, almost entire procedure is dispensed with. However, such dispensation of procedure is impermissible under law. 14. In view of the above, while setting aside reason No. 3 mentioned in letter dated 23.06.2019 of the appellants sent by G-mail, the order of the learned single Judge is modified by permitting the appellants to scrutinize the application and other documents produced by the writ petitioner and if they are found in order, irrespective of the deficient survey number mentioned in the application in respect of the land offered by the writ petitioner, the appellants shall take appropriate steps on the application of the writ petitioner. 15. With the above modification, the Writ Appeal is disposed of. No costs. All pending miscellaneous applications shall stand closed.