JUDGMENT Vinit Kumar Mathur, J. - Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the communication/E-mail dated 13.01.2020 (Annexure 10) passed by the respondent Nos. 1 & 2, whereby the petitioner's candidature was rejected on the report of the Land Evaluation Committee. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the Respondent-Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited (hereinafter referred to as the "BPCL") published an advertisement for dealerships of the petrol pumps to be issued in the urban areas and rural areas. The petitioner in furtherance of the advertisement dated 14.12.2018 applied for issuance of a petrol pump at location No. 127 in Village Gagrana, Tehsil Merta, District Nagaur. The petitioner's candidature was considered along with the other candidates and ultimately the petitioner was found eligible and was placed in Group-I category. The petitioner thereafter submitted all the requisite documents in furtherance of his candidature having been shortlisted in Group-I. The application of the petitioner was processed and in furtherance of the same, the Land Evaluation Committee (hereinafter referred to as "LEC") inspected the site of the petitioner on 10.01.2020. While the inspection was being done by the Land Evaluation Committee, it was found that a 33 KVA electric line is passing through the proposed petrol pump site and a report to that effect was prepared by the Land Evaluation Committee of the respondent-BPCL. The same was submitted to the higher authorities for consideration. Based on the report submitted by the Land Evaluation Committee, the candidature of the petitioner was rejected vide communication/E-mail dated 13.01.2020. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the validity of the same and submitted before this court that the candidature of the petitioner has wrongly been rejected as the 33 KVA electric line which was passing through the proposed site of the petrol pump of the petitioner was not charged as there was no flow of current on the day, it was inspected. He further submits that the petitioner has already taken up the case vide (Annexure-8) for shifting of such 33 KVA electric line from the proposed site of the petrol pump to some other place and the authorities concerned of the respondent No. 3-Ajmer Vidyut Vitram Nigam Limited have processed the case for shifting of the 33 KVA electric line. He further submits that the petitioner has already taken up the case vide (Annexure-8) for shifting of such 33 KVA electric line from the proposed site of the petrol pump to some other place and the authorities concerned of the respondent No. 3-Ajmer Vidyut Vitram Nigam Limited have processed the case for shifting of the 33 KVA electric line. Learned counsel further submits that all those documents which the petitioner submitted before the officials of the Ajmer Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited were also supplied to the officers of the respondent-BPCL Corporation who visited the site. He assured the officers of the BPCL that before the operation of the petrol pump activities, the 33 KVA electric line will be shifted. 5. Learned counsel further submits that in furtherance of the application preferred by the petitioner, after the date of inspection by LEC the electric line has been shifted. He, therefore, submits that the rejection of the candidature of the petitioner on the report of the Land Evaluation Committee is, therefore, arbitrary and illegal. He, thus, prays that the writ petition may kindly be allowed and the respondent-BPCL may be directed to process the case of the petitioner for grant of petrol pump at the site inspected by the Land Evaluation Committee. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 & 2-BPCL vehemently submitted that the grant of dealership for the fuel outlet (diesel and petrol) is governed by the Brochure on Selection of Dealers for Regular and Rural Retail Outlets dated 24.11.2018. As per guideline No. 14-H, the LEC has to see the eligibility of the land offered by the candidate and if the same falls within the criteria laid down under Clause 14-H, the same is recommended for allotment. Learned counsel further submits that since the High Tension line was passing over the land proposed by the petitioner on the date of inspection, therefore, the land offered was not suitable for establishment of the petrol pump as per Clause 14-H of the guideline. 7. Learned counsel further submits that although the petitioner informed the officers of the BPCL that such line passing through the proposed land of the petrol pump would be shifted but in fact, there was no reason to believe that such shifting will take place before the establishment of the petrol pump. 7. Learned counsel further submits that although the petitioner informed the officers of the BPCL that such line passing through the proposed land of the petrol pump would be shifted but in fact, there was no reason to believe that such shifting will take place before the establishment of the petrol pump. He further submits that in any case, the land which is shortlisted for the proposed petrol pump has to pass the test on the date of inspection by LEC as per the Heading 14-H of the Brochure and since the land of the petitioner was not meeting the criteria enumerated in the Brochure, therefore, the respondent authorities of the BPCL were correct in reporting the matter to the competent authorities about the infirmity in the land on the date of inspection. 8. Learned counsel for the respondents further submits that this court has passed the interim order on 22.01.2020 taking into consideration the fact that in similar circumstances, for allotment of a gas agency, wherein godown was situated near 33 KVA electric line, the applicant was given 14 days' time for removal of such 33 KVA electric line. He submits that on verification of this statement, it revealed that the respondent-BPCL on an enquiry having been made on such assertion made by the petitioner, it was found that no such KVA line was passing through the proposed area where the godown for the gas agency was being established. He further submits that the Land Evaluation Committee physically inspected the area mentioned in the order dated 22.01.2020 and reported that no such High Tension line was passing through the godown. Therefore, there was no question of granting 14 days' time to applicant for removal of the 33 KVA electric line. Learned counsel therefore, submits that the action taken by the respondent-BPCL in rejecting the candidature of the petitioner is just, proper and correct and no interference is warranted by this court. 9. I have considered the submissions made at the Bar and have gone through the relevant documents placed before this Court. 10. The conditions for grant of petrol pump are enumerated in the Brochure of respondent Nos. 9. I have considered the submissions made at the Bar and have gone through the relevant documents placed before this Court. 10. The conditions for grant of petrol pump are enumerated in the Brochure of respondent Nos. 1 & 2 which enshrines certain conditions for allotment of the petrol pumps, one of such conditions is given in Para 14-H of the guidelines which reads as under:- "H. Land Evaluation: The concerned Divisional/Regional/Territory Office shall inform the selected candidate thru e-mail/SMS at least 10 days before the day of visit by LEC for site evaluation. In case of no response/non-availability of the selected applicant, the candidature shall be cancelled under intimation to the selected candidate through SMS/e-mail. Evaluation of the offered land will be carried out to ascertain land being in advertised area and suitable for development of RO - meeting norms. The parameters under which land will be evaluated by Land Evaluation Committee for suitability are:- Land in advertised area/stretch Land dimensions as per requirement Land meets NHAI norms (for sites on NH) Land has no HT line (< 11KVA) crossing Land not meeting any of the above parameters will not be considered and will be rejected." Note: Offered land should have minimum frontage & area as specified in advertisement. Minimum Depth perpendicular to the frontage at least at one place, should be available as specified in advertisement. In case the offered land is found to be suitable, the LEC will submit the recommendation to the Divisional/Regional/Territory head for carrying out FVC of the selected candidate. In case land is not found suitable, the selected candidate will be informed about his ineligibility and selection process will be continued with the balance applicants. However, the candidate would be considered for selection along with Group 3 applicants and intimation will be sent to the candidate." 11. The conditions mentioned in the Brochure are very specific, clear and the candidature of a person can be considered within the framework of those guidelines only. It is an admitted position that in the present case, on the date of inspection by the Land Evaluation Committee, the High Tension line was passing through the petrol pump. 12. It is true that there would not have been any charge or there was no current in that line on that day but that cannot be a sole ground to presume that no current will be flown thereafter. 12. It is true that there would not have been any charge or there was no current in that line on that day but that cannot be a sole ground to presume that no current will be flown thereafter. It is of common knowledge that once the line has been erected by the electricity department or by the concerned Ajmer Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited, it is erected with the purpose of supplying electricity only. Therefore, to presume this fact that no electricity will flow in that line, is unfounded. Further, the application so preferred by the petitioner for removal of that line has not been finally decided by the Ajmer Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited nor any assurance has been given by the respondent No. 3-Department till the date of inspection by LEC that it will certainly be removed within a fixed period. 13. The fact of the matter is that the date on which the inspection was conducted by the Land Evaluation Committee, the High Tension line was passing over the land of the petitioner and it was not meeting the criteria as enumerated in the Brochure of the respondent-BPCL. For better appreciation, a close reading of the 14-H of the guidelines shows that if any land where HT line is passing or crossing over which the petrol pump has to be established, then that place will not be suitable for the purpose of establishing the petrol pump and in view of the fact that the 33 KVA electric line was passing through the area over the subject piece of land, the Land Evaluation Committee has rightly reported the matter to the competent authorities and the competent authorities had rightly rejected the candidature of the petitioner. 14. The assertion of the petitioner that in similar circumstances in a gas godown where the High Tension line was passing through the land in question and 14 days' time was granted for removal of the line, the report of the Land Evaluation Committee was placed before this Court showing that no High Tension line was passing over the gas godown, therefore, there was no question of granting 14 days' time to remove the same. Hence, there is no discrimination. 15. In view of the discussions made above, the writ petition is devoid of any force and the same is hereby dismissed. 16. Hence, there is no discrimination. 15. In view of the discussions made above, the writ petition is devoid of any force and the same is hereby dismissed. 16. Stay application as well as other pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.