ORDER : M. NAGAPRASANNA, J. The petitioner is before this Court seeking a direction to prohibit respondents 1 and 2 from granting any petroleum outlet under Group-I Category to respondent No.7 and seeks a consequential direction of issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents/authorities to cancel dealership allotment in favour of respondent No.7 and in turn consider the petitioner for allotment of similar petroleum outlet. 2. Heard Sri D.R. Ravishankar, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri B.Pramod, learned counsel appearing for respondents 1 and 2, Sri Shamanth Naik, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent Nos. 3 to 6 and Sri Bipin Hegde, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.7. 3. Facts, in brief, germane are as follows: - On 17-10-2023 the 1 st respondent/Hindustan Petroleum Corporation (‘the Corporation’ for short) calls for applications from desirous and eligible participants for the purpose of selection for establishment of retail outlets of the Corporation. All the interested persons were called for bidding on 08-12-2023. It appears that respondent No.7 was declared as successful bidder for the location that forms the subject matter of the present lis. Therefore, his application dated 17-10-2023 comes to be accepted. 4. It is the averment in the petition that upon reviewing the documents submitted by the 7 th respondent it was found that the land offered for the purpose of establishment of fuel station was an agricultural land. At the time of submission of the application the 7 th respondent did not possess the land as mandated under the guidelines for such allotment. The only land the 7 th respondent had was on a long term lease of 20 years on the said agricultural land in terms of a lease deed dated 25-09-2023. On 24-01-2025, a communication emerges from the respondent/Corporation that it has scrutinized the documents or reviewed the documents submitted by the 7 th respondent, which sufficiently demonstrated that the land that was shown as the place for establishment of fuel station met the eligibility criteria under Group-I category in terms of the guidelines and all the allegations that the petitioner had made were found to be incorrect. 5. The petitioner again submitted representations to the Tahsildar, District Registrar and Sub-Registrar requesting clarification on the registration of agricultural land for commercial use, particularly regarding long term lease agreement for a period of 20 years. The representations remained unanswered. 5. The petitioner again submitted representations to the Tahsildar, District Registrar and Sub-Registrar requesting clarification on the registration of agricultural land for commercial use, particularly regarding long term lease agreement for a period of 20 years. The representations remained unanswered. In the interregnum, the petitioner on coming to know that the 7 th respondent would be allotted the outlet, files the present writ petition on 07-02-2025. A coordinate Bench of this Court grants an interim order not to make any allotment of the retail outlet dealership to the 7 th respondent until further orders. The 7 th respondent then prefers an application seeking vacation of the interim order. During the pendency of the said application, the 7 th respondent files a memo that on 07-03-2025 the land in Sy.No.136/7 measuring 37 guntas which is submitted for usage of fuel station has been converted from agriculture to non- agricultural/commercial use for the purpose of putting up of a petrol bunk only. The matter, with the consent of parties, is heard at that stage. 6. The learned senior counsel Sri D.R. Ravishankar appearing for the petitioner would contend that the 7 th respondent has misrepresented about non-agricultural status of the subject land. The petitioner should have been declared a successful bidder, as the land mentioned by him, in his application is a legally converted land eligible to be used for commercial purpose. The petitioner’s land was converted long before the last date of filing of the application in terms of the notification issued by the 1 st respondent. He would, therefore, contend that the guidelines mandate that production of conversion order in the case of a long-term lease of any land of 19 years 11 months as the case may be, is mandatory. The learned senior counsel would take this Court through the RTC extracts of land submitted by the 7 th respondent and submit that they show only 6½ guntas of land is converted. He would submit that the petition be allowed and the prayer be granted by directing the allotment in favour of the petitioner. He would seek to place reliance upon several judgments rendered by this Court on the issue to buttress his submission, all of which would bear consideration qua their relevance. 7. He would submit that the petition be allowed and the prayer be granted by directing the allotment in favour of the petitioner. He would seek to place reliance upon several judgments rendered by this Court on the issue to buttress his submission, all of which would bear consideration qua their relevance. 7. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the 7 th respondent, the beneficiary of the allotment, would refute the submissions to contend that the allotment of a petrol bunk does not require furnishing of details of land to be made available at the time of filing of the application. In the brochure, it is clearly indicated that a provisionally selected candidate will be required to offer the land for evaluation and after the land is found to be, not that of the allottee, either owning or leased, two months’ time from the date of issuance of the letter of intent is available to the selected candidate to give an alternate land. He seeks to place reliance on Section 43 of the Transfer of Property Act to contend that the land that is leased also would come within the ‘land’ that is necessary to be given to the Corporation. 8. The learned counsel for the Corporation would toe the lines of the learned counsel for the 7 th respondent in contending that the clause permits action taken by the Corporation and, therefore, the application of the 7 th respondent has merited consideration at the hands of the Corporation. The Counsels, in unison, would seek dismissal of the petition. 9. Sri Shamanth Naik, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent Nos. 3 to 6 would submit that they are formal parties and what is available in law is already communicated to the petitioner against the application filed by him. He would leave the decision to the Court. 10. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the respective learned counsel and have perused the material on record. 11. The issue in the lis is with regard to selection of dealers for establishment of regular and rural retail outlets. All the three Corporations, IOC, BPCL and HPCL have notified a brochure for selection of such dealers. Since the issue relates to selection of dealers, I deem it appropriate to notice certain clauses of the guidelines so notified for selection of dealers. All the three Corporations, IOC, BPCL and HPCL have notified a brochure for selection of such dealers. Since the issue relates to selection of dealers, I deem it appropriate to notice certain clauses of the guidelines so notified for selection of dealers. They read as follows:- “INTRODUCTION The salient features of this selection guidelines are: (i) All applicants meeting the eligibility criteria will qualify for further selection process. (ii) Different selection process for Corporation Owned Dealer Operated outlets, Dealer Owned Dealer Operated outlets and Corporation Owned Dealer Operated outlets under Corpus Fund Scheme. (iii) Multiple Dealership Norm (MDN) has been relaxed for "B"/" DC" site ROs. (iv) Existing unviable SKO dealers of OMCs will be eligible to apply. (v) Corpus Fund Scheme of providing financial assistance by OMCs can be availed by applicants applying for locations reserved for SC/ST category, upon appointment as dealer. …. …. …. 2. RESERVATION A. The Percentage of reservation for various categories in all the States except Arunachal Pradesh, Meghalaya, Nagaland and Mizoram are as under: - Category SC/ST OBC Open Total C Combined Category 1 (CC1) omprising of :- (i) Defence Personnel & (ii) Para Military Personnel/Central/State Govt. and Central/State PSU employees 2 2 4 8 Combined Category 2 (CC2) Comprising of :- (i) Outstanding Sports Persons (OSP) & (ii) Freedom Fighters (FF) (iii) Primary Agricultural Credit Society (PACS) 0 0 1 1 Physically Handicapped (PH) 1 1 1 3 SC/ST 19.50 19.50 OBC 24 24 Open 44.50 44.50 Total 22.50 27 50.50 100 4. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR INDIVIDUAL APPLICANTS – PROPRIETORSHIP / PARTNERSHIP Common Eligibility Criteria for all Categories applying as individual (as on date of application unless mentioned otherwise) (i) Citizenship: Indian Citizen. (ii) Residential status: Resident of India (as per income tax rules (If an individual stayed in India for 182 days or more in the previous Financial year, he is treated as resident of India as per Income Tax Rules irrespective of his citizenship. If the stay is less than 182 days he is a non- resident)). (iii) PAN : Must possess valid PAN card as on the date of application. (iv) Age : Not less than 21 years and not more than 60 years except for Freedom Fighter under CC2 category. Proof of age should be supported by copy of 10 th Standard Board Certificate/10 th Std. (iii) PAN : Must possess valid PAN card as on the date of application. (iv) Age : Not less than 21 years and not more than 60 years except for Freedom Fighter under CC2 category. Proof of age should be supported by copy of 10 th Standard Board Certificate/10 th Std. School Leaving Certificate/ Secondary School Leaving Certificate / Birth Certificate /Passport/Identity card issued by Election Commission/PAN card/Aadhar card. However, the document uploaded by the provisionally selected candidate in support of proof of age must contain date, month and year of birth and the certificate relied upon by the candidate for proof of age must be specially mentioned in the application. (v) Educational qualification Passed Minimum 10 th (examination conducted by a Board/School). Certificate issued by Armed Forces as equivalent to 10 th Class pass in accordance with Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions (Dept. of Personnel and Training) notification No. 15012/8/82-Estt (D) dated 12.02.1986 will also be considered. For educational qualification from overseas universities/boards, equivalent certificate issued by competent authority / State Government / Government of India should be submitted by the applicants. Minimum Educational qualification is not applicable to Freedom Fighters applying under CC2 category. (vi) Land (Applicable to all categories): The applicants would be classified into three groups as mentioned below based on the land offered or land not offered by them in the application form: - Group - 1: Applicants having suitable piece of land in the advertised location/area either by way of ownership/long term lease for a period of minimum 19 years 11 months or as advertised by the OMC. Group - 2: Applicants having Firm Offer for a suitable piece of land for purchase or long-term lease for a period of minimum 19 years 11 months or as advertised by the OMC. Group-3: Applicants who have not offered land in the application. Only applicable for locations advertised under SC/ST category. Applications under Group - 3 would be processed/advised to offer land (Annexure - D) only in case no eligible applicant is found or no applicant get selected under Group - 1 & Group-2. Group-3: Applicants who have not offered land in the application. Only applicable for locations advertised under SC/ST category. Applications under Group - 3 would be processed/advised to offer land (Annexure - D) only in case no eligible applicant is found or no applicant get selected under Group - 1 & Group-2. In case land offered by all the applicants under Group -1 & Group-2 is found not suitable/not meeting requirements, then these applicant/s under Group - 1 & Group - 2 along with applicants under Group - 3 (who did not offer land along with application) would be advised by the OMCs to provide suitable land in the advertised location /stretch, within a period of 90 days from the date of issuance of intimation letter to them through SMS/e-mail. In case the applicant fails to provide suitable land within the prescribed period, or the land provided is found not meeting the laid down criteria, the application would be rejected. The other conditions with respect to offering of land are as under: - a) The land should be available with the applicant as on the date of application and should have minimum lease of 19 years and 11 months (as advertised by respective oil company) from the date or after the date of advertisement but not later than the date of application. If the offered land is on Long- term lease and there are multiple owners, then lease deed should be executed by all co- owners of the offered plot. Incase lease deed is not executed by all co-owners; such lease deed shall be treated as invalid. …. …. …. 15. FIELD VERIFICATION OF CREDENTIALS (FVC) Field Verification of Credentials (FVC) will be carried out for the provisionally selected candidate in respect of details given by the candidate in the application form. The objective of the FVC is to verify the correctness of the details given by the candidate in the application and the documents submitted thereafter. Failure to present these documents in original at the time of Field verification can result in cancellation of selection. Intimation regarding FVC will be given to the provisionally selected candidate 10 days in advance by SMS/e-mail. In case of any request for change of date/extension the next date will be given by mutual consent. However, the rescheduled date cannot be more than 10 days from the originally proposed FVC date. Intimation regarding FVC will be given to the provisionally selected candidate 10 days in advance by SMS/e-mail. In case of any request for change of date/extension the next date will be given by mutual consent. However, the rescheduled date cannot be more than 10 days from the originally proposed FVC date. In case of no response/non-availability of the provisionally selected applicant on the revised scheduled date, the candidature shall be cancelled under intimation to the provisionally selected candidate through SMS/e- mail. The candidate would be required to produce all original documents at the time of FVC which were uploaded after provisional selection for verification. Original affidavits, copies of which were uploaded would be required to be submitted by the candidate to the FVC committee. 16. LETTER OF INTENT If the information given in the application by the applicant is found to be correct, and no selection related complaint/court case is pending for decision, Letter of Intent will be issued to the provisionally selected candidate. The dealer select, after receipt of LOI is required to make the offered land available in developed condition as per clause 12 (e) of affidavit ( Appendix - XA ) or as per clause 11 (e) of affidavit ( Appendix - XB ) and fulfill the other requisite conditions as mentioned in the LOI. The dealer select under Group - 1 category would be given 2 months and 4 months would be given to Group - 2 category for making land available along with all relevant land documents in respect of the land offered in the application for enabling OMCs to prepare layouts /applications for seeking the statutory approvals / licenses so that the Retail Outlet can be developed, failing which OMC can withdraw the LOI and proceed further with selection process. LOI will be issued after FVC but not before 30 days from declaration of results of draw of lots /bidding process/ direct selection. Affidavit as per Appendix - XA or XB (as applicable) is to be taken again afresh from the applicant at the time of issuance of LOI. Withdrawal of LOI In case LOI holder is unable to provide the land/ develop facilities within the specified time or due to non-fulfilment of terms & conditions of LOI, then LOI can be withdrawn. Affidavit as per Appendix - XA or XB (as applicable) is to be taken again afresh from the applicant at the time of issuance of LOI. Withdrawal of LOI In case LOI holder is unable to provide the land/ develop facilities within the specified time or due to non-fulfilment of terms & conditions of LOI, then LOI can be withdrawn. A show cause notice would be given to the LOI holder and based on his reply decision to withdraw LOI can be taken by OMC. In such situations Initial Security Deposit would be forfeited. The Initial Security Deposit would also be forfeited if the LOI holder is unable to submit the total bidding amount/fixed fee within the stipulated time or the LOI holder surrenders his/her LOI for any reason or withdraws for any reason. In such case his/her selection would be treated as cancelled and LOI withdrawn. …. …. …. 18. GRIEVANCE REDRESSAL SYSTEM Any complaint should be accompanied by a fee of Rs.5000/-, only in the form of demand draft of scheduled bank in favour of the Oil Company. Any complaint received without this fee will not be entertained. The complaint received against the selection including eligibility will be disposed of as under: - (i) Complaints received before or after draw of lots/bidding process along with requisite fee of Rs.5000/-, will be kept in record and investigation carried out after successful completion of scrutiny, land evaluation and Field Verification of Credential for the selected candidate only in following cases:- • General complaints with verifiable facts • Complaints against selected candidate* * Selected candidate means the candidate who has completed Field Verification of Credentials successfully and is eligible for issuance of LOI.” (Emphasis supplied) The afore-quoted clauses of the guidelines are the ones that are germane. The allotment is divided into three categories. Group-1 would be those who are having suitable piece of land in the advertised location by way of ownership or long-term lease of 19 years 11 months; Group-2 would be the applicants who are having firm offer for a suitable piece of land for purchase or long-term lease; and Group-3 would be those applicants who have not offered land in the application. This is applicable only to locations advertised under SC & ST category. This is applicable only to locations advertised under SC & ST category. The clause further elaborates that, in case of a lands offered by the applicant under Groups-1 and 2 are not found suitable, then the applicants under those groups would be advised to provide suitable land in the advertised location within 90 days from the date of issuance of intimation letters to them with regard to the allotment. 12. What would unmistakably emerge from the afore-quoted clauses is that a person who is applying should have a land of his own or should have a long-term lease of property of minimum 19 years 11 months or should be a proper/concrete offer for such lease. It also provides 90 days’ time for issuance of letter of intent to alter the land in case the land provided not being in terms of the guidelines. The letter of intent is dealt with under clause 16. The letter of intent further makes it clear that a dealer selected under Group-1 category would be given two months and Group-2 would be given four months for making the land available along with all relevant documents. The submission of the learned counsel for the 7 th respondent is basing his claim only on clause 16 which deals with letter of intent. The issue now would be, whether the land that the 7 th respondent has offered for establishment of a fuel outlet is a converted land or otherwise, as it is trite that dealership of a fuel outlet, cannot be an agricultural activity. 13. The allegation of the petitioner is that the land that belonged to the 7 th respondent or offered at the time of advertisement is not a converted land. This appears to be correct for the reason that the conversion order comes about on 07-03-2025. The order of conversion reads as follows: The conversion order is on 07-03-2025. The conversion application is filed on 29-01-2025. The conversion is for a specific purpose - for establishment of a petrol bunk. 14. The issue would be, whether an agricultural land could have been projected to be the land for establishment of a petroleum outlet or a fuel station at the time of submission of the application. The conversion application is filed on 29-01-2025. The conversion is for a specific purpose - for establishment of a petrol bunk. 14. The issue would be, whether an agricultural land could have been projected to be the land for establishment of a petroleum outlet or a fuel station at the time of submission of the application. The issue need not detain this Court for long or delve deep into the matter, as the Division Bench of this Court in the case of VINOD N v. M/S INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED , [W.A.No.216 of 2020 disposed on 20-07-2021] , on identical circumstance, has held as follows: “…. …. …. 3. The appellant was declared as a successful candidate in the draw held for selection and on 23.06.2019 a letter was issued directing the appellant to remit a sum of Rs.50,000/- and to complete the formalities. Vide communication dated 21.10.2019, he was informed that the land offered by him does not fall under Group – 1 as per Market Discipline Guidelines and he has been shifted to Group – 3. 4. A petition was preferred before this Court stating that a lease deed was very much submitted and the M/s. Indian Oil Corporation could not have treated it as mortgage deed and no loan was advanced to the appellant. The learned Single Judge while deciding the matter has observed that the deed is a transfer deed and not a mortgage deed. This Court has carefully gone through the aforesaid document and the document does not reveal at all that any loan was advanced at any point of time to the appellant. Otherwise also, as per the Market Discipline Guidelines, in case a land offered by an applicant under Group – 1 is not found suitable, three months’ time has to be given to him to provide suitable alternative land in the advertised location/stretch. 5. At this juncture, learned counsel Sri. Dhananjay V Joshi who is the counsel in the connected matter, has argued before this Court that the notice to provide alternative land is only given in case there is no person available under Groups – 1 and 2 has offered a suitable land. 6. 5. At this juncture, learned counsel Sri. Dhananjay V Joshi who is the counsel in the connected matter, has argued before this Court that the notice to provide alternative land is only given in case there is no person available under Groups – 1 and 2 has offered a suitable land. 6. The relevant extract of the brochure relating to selection of dealers for regular and rural retail outlets under the heading “land” is reproduced as under: “The applicants would be classified into three groups as mentioned below based on the land offered or land not offered by them in the application form:- Group 1 : Applicants having suitable piece of land in the advertised location / area either by way of ownership / long term lease for a period of minimum 19 years 11 months or as advertised by the OMC. Group 2 : Applicants having Firm Offer for a suitable piece of land for purchase or long term lease for a period of minimum 19 years 11 months or as advertised by the OMC. Group 3 : Applicants who have not offered land in the application. Applications under Group 3 would be processed /advised to offer land only in case no eligible applicant is found or no applicant get selected under Group 1 & 2. In case land offered by all the applicants under Group 1 & Group 2 is found not suitable / no meeting requirements, then these applicant/s under Group 1 & Group 2 along with applicants under Group 3 (who did not offer land along with application) would be advised by the OMCs to provide suitable land in the advertised location / stretch, within a period of 3 months from the date of issuance of intimation letter to them through SMS/e-mail. In case the applicant fails to provide suitable land within the prescribed period or the land provided is found not meeting the laid down criteria, the application would be rejected.” 7. The learned counsel for M/s. Indian Oil Corporation has not been able to point out whether there are other persons available who have offered suitable land under Groups – 1 and 2. 8. The learned counsel for M/s. Indian Oil Corporation has not been able to point out whether there are other persons available who have offered suitable land under Groups – 1 and 2. 8. Resultantly, in case there is no other person available in Group – 1 or Group – 2 who has been found suitable keeping in view the land requirements, M/s. Indian Oil Corporation shall give three months’ notice to all the applicants for offering a suitable land and in case the land offered by some other applicants under Groups – 1 and 2 is held to be suitable, then the requirement of three months’ notice to the present appellant does not arise. 9. So far as the lease / mortgage deed is concerned, undisputedly, the land in question is an agricultural land and as per the provisions of Karnataka Land Reforms Act , 1961, keeping in view Section 5 , no tenancy can be created by way of lease in respect of agricultural land. Hence, the so called lease / mortgage deed as it is contrary to the statutory provisions cannot be looked into for the purpose of “land” under the selection criteria. Otherwise also, the title of the deed is “mortgage deed” as reflected from the document which is on record as per Annexure-F.” (Emphasis supplied) The case before the Division Bench was also of a successful bidder or successful candidate offering an agricultural land for the purpose of establishment of a fuel station. This was initially challenged before the learned single Judge in Writ Petition No.1213 of 2020. On 21-01-2020 the writ petition had been dismissed by the following order: “Petitioner’s grievance is by communication dated 21 st October 2019, the Indian Oil Corporation(IOC) has conveyed that the land document submitted by the petitioner does not fall under Group-1 and hence, petitioner’s application would be considered under Group-3. 2. Shri. Mallikarjun C. Basareddy, learned Advocate for petitioner submitted that the communication is bad in law because, petitioner has furnished lease agreement dated 14 th December 2018 as per Annexure-F. 3. Shri. Vighneshwar S. Shastri, learned Advocate for Corporation submitted that though petitioner claims to have submitted ‘Lease Agreement’, the document submitted by him is in fact a ‘Mortgage Deed’. Therefore, petitioner’s case cannot be considered under Group-1. 4. Perusal of Annexure-F shows that it is a mortgage deed. Shri. Vighneshwar S. Shastri, learned Advocate for Corporation submitted that though petitioner claims to have submitted ‘Lease Agreement’, the document submitted by him is in fact a ‘Mortgage Deed’. Therefore, petitioner’s case cannot be considered under Group-1. 4. Perusal of Annexure-F shows that it is a mortgage deed. Hence, no exception can be taken to the decision taken by IOC to consider petitioner’s case in Group-3 category. 5. Resultantly, this petition fails and it is accordingly, dismissed.” The learned single Judge had observed that no exception can be taken to the decision taken by the IOC therein to consider the case of the petitioner in Group-3, as he was not eligible under Group-1. This is affirmed by the Division Bench. 15. A little later to the aforesaid order, a learned single Judge of this Court in the case of N.MANJUNATH REDDY v. THE HEAD OF DIVISIONAL OFFICE AND ANOTHER , [Writ PetitionNo.1091 of 2020 disposed of on 22-01-2020] , has held as follows: “…. …. …. 3. Learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that petitioner has submitted a valid Lease Agreement dated 14.12.2018. However, the Indian Oil Corporation has sent the instant communication without proper application of mind. 4. Learned advocate for respondent No.1-Corporation has filed a memo along with a copy of Record of Right (pahani) in respect of Sy.No.9/1, Royalmandinne Village, Tayaluru Hobli, Mulubagalu Taluk, Kolar District, and also a copy of Lease Agreement in respect of property bearing No.9/1 of the same village. He submitted that initially petitioner had offered an agricultural land and submitted a Record of Right in respect Sy.No.9/1. Subsequently, Lease Agreement in respect of property No.9/1 has been submitted. Therefore, Indian Oil Corporation has rightly conveyed that the land in question cannot be considered under Group 1. 5. In reply, learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that as per Clause ix contained in the brochure (Annexure-C), the Indian Oil Corporation is required to give 21 days time to the petitioner, which is not complied with. 6. Admitted position is that petitioner initially offered Sy.No.9/1 as per Record of Right. Lease Agreement dated 14.12.2018 produced by both petitioner and respondent is in respect of property bearing No.9/1. Learned advocate for the petitioner also submitted that the District Registrar of Stamps has conveyed that both properties are same. The District Registrar is not the competent Authority to decide whether two properties are same. Lease Agreement dated 14.12.2018 produced by both petitioner and respondent is in respect of property bearing No.9/1. Learned advocate for the petitioner also submitted that the District Registrar of Stamps has conveyed that both properties are same. The District Registrar is not the competent Authority to decide whether two properties are same. In the instant case, Lease Agreement is in respect of property bearing No.9/1 and the Record of Right is in respect of Sy.No.9/1. Petitioner has given two different documents, the first one as agriculture property and second one with ‘property number’ without conversion of land for non-agriculture purpose. 7. In the circumstances, no exception can be taken to the communication dated 08.01.2020 issued by the Indian Oil Corporation. Resultantly, this petition fails and it is accordingly dismissed .” (Emphasis supplied) In the light of the issue being answered by the Division Bench as observed, this Court need not delve deep into the issue. The admitted facts in the case at hand are that, as on the date when the application of the 7 th respondent was taken up for consideration, the land that he had offered was still an agricultural land, which was yet to get converted for non-agricultural purposes, even an application for conversion had not been preferred by the 7 th respondent. It is preferred only on 29-01-2025, long after his selection and it is converted during the pendency of the subject petition, that too only for petrol bunk purpose. 16. It is trite law that an application should meet all the necessities of the brochure or the advertisement on the last date depicted for the purpose of submission of application. As observed hereinabove, the admitted fact is that the 7 th respondent did not have a valid land to be projected for the purpose of establishment of a fuel station. It is ununderstandable as to how respondent No.7 has been selected by the Corporation. The selection, therefore, suffers from the vice of non-application of mind and runs counter to the judgment rendered by the Division Bench. In that light, the petition deserves to succeed, albeit in part, as there can be no direction by grant of an allotment in favour of the petitioner, while observing that the allotment in favour of 7 th respondent was erroneous and contrary to law. 17. For the aforesaid reasons, the following: ORDER (i) Writ Petition is allowed in part. In that light, the petition deserves to succeed, albeit in part, as there can be no direction by grant of an allotment in favour of the petitioner, while observing that the allotment in favour of 7 th respondent was erroneous and contrary to law. 17. For the aforesaid reasons, the following: ORDER (i) Writ Petition is allowed in part. (ii) The allotment made in favour of the 7 th respondent stands quashed. (iii) The matter is remitted back to the hands of the 1 st respondent/Corporation to consider the next eligible candidate for the purpose of establishment of petrol pump, if the said candidate would meet all the necessities under the guidelines, bearing in mind the observations made in the course of the order. Ordered accordingly. Consequently, I.A.No.1 of 2025 stands disposed.