JUDGMENT : ANU SIVARAMAN, J. The Writ Appeal is filed by the petitioner/appellant challenging the Order dated 25.03.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.10971/2020 (GM- RES). 2. We have heard Shri. Abhinav Ramanand, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, Shri. Vachan H.V., learned counsel appearing for Smt. H. Pavithra and Smt. Kavitha Damodaran, learned advocates appearing for respondents No.1 and 2. 3. It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant that the appellant is a resident of Nitrahalli, Madhugiri Taluk, Tumkur District, applied for a Retail Outlet dealership advertised by the respondents - a Petroleum Refining and Sales Company, particularly of Motor Spirit (Petrol) and High-Speed Diesel Oil (HSD), on 25.11.2018. The dealership was to be located on NH-234 between 9 km to 12 km from Madhugiri towards Sira. 4. The appellant submitted his application under Group-1, offering 10 guntas of land in Sy.No.42/3, Madhugiri Taluk, through a Lease Deed dated 22.12.2018 for a period of 22 years titled 'Jameenina Bhogya Patra (Lease Deed),' at Annexure ‘D’. The respondents informed the appellant that he had qualified for the draw of lots. The appellant participated in the draw of lots conducted on 21.01.2020 and was declared the successful candidate. Subsequently, he was required to submit necessary documents and pay an initial security deposit of Rs.30,000/- which he duly complied with. The next step involved a Field Verification of Credentials (FVC) by respondent No.2, but this was never completed. 5. It is submitted that despite fulfilling all requirements, respondent No.2 on 11.06.2020, issued a communication stating that the land documents provided by the appellant were not valid for consideration under Group- 1. The respondents classified the Lease Deed as a Mortgage Deed, rendering the appellant ineligible under clause 4(v) of the brochure for Dealership Selection Guidelines. As a result, his application was moved to Group-3, where applicants had not offered land. The appellant submits that this action is arbitrary and illegal, as the respondents had misinterpreted his Lease Deed as a Mortgage Deed, leading to his disqualification despite his compliance with the required conditions. 6. It is also submitted that aggrieved by this decision, the appellant challenged the communication dated 11.06.2020 before this Court in W.P.No.10971/2020 (GM- RES). The appellant submits that this action is arbitrary and illegal, as the respondents had misinterpreted his Lease Deed as a Mortgage Deed, leading to his disqualification despite his compliance with the required conditions. 6. It is also submitted that aggrieved by this decision, the appellant challenged the communication dated 11.06.2020 before this Court in W.P.No.10971/2020 (GM- RES). However, by Order dated 25.03.2021, the learned Single Judge upheld the interpretation of the respondents holding that the document produced by the appellant was indeed a Mortgage Deed and not a Lease Deed, and thus did not meet the eligibility criteria for Group-1. 7. According to the advertisement issued by the respondents, the three groups to offer land for the applicants are set-out as under:- (i) 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 (Oil Marketing Companies); (ii) 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; (iii) Group 3 : Applicants who have not offered land in the application. 8. It is contended by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant that the communication dated 11.06.2020 was issued without affording the appellant an opportunity to be heard, thereby violating the principles of natural justice. Further, the learned Single Judge failed to appreciate that the communication dated 11.06.2020 is contrary to the conditions stipulated in the Dealership Selection Brochure. Clause 4(v)(d) of the brochure explicitly permits applicants to hold land through a registered Lease Deed for a minimum period of 19 years and 11 months or through "any other type of ownership/Transfer Deed document". However, the respondents erroneously classified the "Jameenina Bhogya Patra" document as a Mortgage Deed, and the learned Single Judge, incorrectly upheld the erroneous classification made by respondent No.2. 9. It is further contended that the Deed dated 22.12.2018, upon a bare perusal, is clearly a Lease Deed and not a Mortgage Deed as wrongly concluded by the learned Single Judge. However, the respondents erroneously classified the "Jameenina Bhogya Patra" document as a Mortgage Deed, and the learned Single Judge, incorrectly upheld the erroneous classification made by respondent No.2. 9. It is further contended that the Deed dated 22.12.2018, upon a bare perusal, is clearly a Lease Deed and not a Mortgage Deed as wrongly concluded by the learned Single Judge. Even assuming, without conceding that the document is a Mortgage Deed, it would still satisfy the conditions of Clause 4(v)(d) of the brochure, which recognizes "any other type of ownership/Transfer Deed Document." It is also contended that a mortgage constitutes a transfer of rights in immovable property and thus falls within the scope of a "Transfer Deed." Consequently, rejection of the appellant’s candidature under Group-1 on the ground that the document is a Mortgage Deed is arbitrary and contrary in terms of the brochure. 10. It is further contended that if the respondents found the document unsuitable for Group-1, they were duty- bound under Clause 4(v) of the brochure to provide the appellant an opportunity to produce an alternative suitable land. However, no such opportunity was granted. Instead, the respondents arbitrarily issued the communication dated 11.06.2020, rejecting the appellant’s application without adhering to the prescribed procedure. 11. It is contended that the respondents’ arbitrary and discriminatory conduct is further evidenced by their acceptance of a similar document styled as "Jameenina Babtu Bhogya Patra," submitted by one Sri Harish N., to whom they awarded the Retail Outlet Dealership. The similarity between the two documents demonstrates that the respondents have acted inconsistently, thereby, violating the appellant’s fundamental rights under Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India. 12. It is contended by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents that the appellant's application was initially considered based on the documents and information furnished by him and he was requested to submit further documentation concerning the proposed land for detailed verification. Upon scrutiny of the documents, it was discovered that the appellant had submitted a Mortgage Deed, which, as per clause 4(v) of the Dealership Brochure, rendered the land ineligible under Group-1. The land was not owned by the appellant under the said Clause. Consequently, the respondents reclassified the appellant’s candidature to Group-3 and formally communicated the rejection of his application under Group-1 through a letter dated 11.06.2020. 13. The land was not owned by the appellant under the said Clause. Consequently, the respondents reclassified the appellant’s candidature to Group-3 and formally communicated the rejection of his application under Group-1 through a letter dated 11.06.2020. 13. It is contended that the decision of the respondents was neither arbitrary nor capricious and was in strict compliance with the eligibility criteria set forth in the dealership brochure. The learned Single Judge after due consideration of the facts and legal position, dismissed the Writ Petition filed by the appellant. Hence, the present appeal. 14. In support of the contentions advanced, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents has placed reliance on Vinod N v. M/s. Indian Oil Corporation Limited by order dated 20.07.2021 passed in W.A.No.216/2020 (Gm-Res). 15. We have considered the contentions advanced. For a proper consideration of the question raised, the following provisions of the brochure would be relevant. Clauses No.4 and 5 reads as follows:- "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) x x x x x (v) 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. 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/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 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. 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. b) If the offered land is on Long term lease, then the Lease agreement should have a provision to sub-lease the land wherever the locations are advertised under Corpus Fund Scheme (CFS), Other Corporation Owned Sites (“A”/“CC” sites). In case it is observed that the lease agreement for the land offered by the selected applicant does not have a provision to sub-lease the land, in such cases the selected applicant would be provided 21 days’ time from the date of intimation through SMS/e-mail to make suitable amendment/addendum to the lease agreement and submit the same to the concerned OMC. c) For Dealer owned sites (“B”/“DC” sites), the applicant should ensure that the land arranged by the applicant is either registered in the applicant’s name or leased in favour of the applicant for a minimum period of 19 years and 11 months (as advertised by respective oil company), before issuance of LOA as per the conditions of LOI. d) The applicant(s) under Group-1 should have documents to establish ownership of land offered for the Dealership as on date of application, such as:- • Khasra/Khatauni or any equivalent revenue document or certificate from revenue official confirming status of the ownership of the land • Registered Sale deed/Registered Gift deed. • Registered Lease deed for a minimum period of 19 years and 11 months (as advertised by respective oil company) . • Any other type of ownership/transfer deed document • Lease agreement or firm allotment letter issued by Government/Semi Government bodies e) The land owned by the family member(s) will also be considered as belonging to the applicant (Group-1) subject to producing the consent letter in the form of affidavit (Appendix III A) from the concerned family member(s). • Any other type of ownership/transfer deed document • Lease agreement or firm allotment letter issued by Government/Semi Government bodies e) The land owned by the family member(s) will also be considered as belonging to the applicant (Group-1) subject to producing the consent letter in the form of affidavit (Appendix III A) from the concerned family member(s). x x x x x l) It should be the responsibility of the applicant to ensure that as on date of application:- i. Offered land is of required dimension and abutting the Road boundary, after leaving Right of Way (ROW) line of the road. ii. The offered land is also not notified for acquisition. iii. Land owner is in Possession of the land from the beginning/edge of ROW line. iv. There is no other land including Govt. land between ROW and offered plot. Note : In case it is found at later stage that the offered plot is not meeting any of the above conditions then in such case the offered land would be rejected and candidate will be given opportunity along with applicants under Group 3 by intimation through SMS/e-mail. m) Verification of the supporting documents submitted by the selected candidate, post selection, will be carried out at the time of Scrutiny/Field Verification of Credentials (FVC). Note 1: a. “Own’ means having ownership by way of Registered Sale deed, Registered Gift deed, etc. or title of the property or registered long lease (as per individual OMC norms) in the name of applicant/family member/s as defined in 4 (v)-e above. b. If an applicant offers more than one land then, a confirmation in writing will be obtained by Land Evaluation Committee (LEC) from the applicant with regard to the plot of land to be considered for evaluation. c. The same piece of land cannot be offered by more than one applicant for a particular RO location against an advertisement. In case more than one application is received offering the same piece of land all such applications would be rejected and allotment, if made, would be liable for cancellation. d. The selected candidate has to make available the offered land duly developed up to the road level by cutting/filling (as applicable), with good earth/murrum, layer-wise compacted as per standard engineering practices to the satisfaction of the concerned OMC. The selected candidate is also required to provide retaining wall and compound wall of min. d. The selected candidate has to make available the offered land duly developed up to the road level by cutting/filling (as applicable), with good earth/murrum, layer-wise compacted as per standard engineering practices to the satisfaction of the concerned OMC. The selected candidate is also required to provide retaining wall and compound wall of min. height 1.5 meters, designed as per site conditions as per approval of OMC. e. There is no commitment by the Oil Company for taking the offered land from the applicant. If an applicant, after selection, is unable to provide the land indicated in the application within a period of 2 months (for Group 1) and 4 months (for Group 2) from the date of Letter of Intent (LOI), Oil Company will have the right to cancel/withdraw the LOI issued in favour of the selected candidate for allotment of dealership. Note 2: In case of locations where the applicant has not offered the land in the application (Group 3) or if the offered land of all applicants under Group 1 & Group 2 got rejected due to not meeting the laid down criteria, then all such applicants shall be given an opportunity to offer land or alternate land (as the case may be) in the advertised location/stretch provided the applicant meet all other eligibility criteria. A communication through SMS/e-mail would be sent to these applicants to offer land/alternate land within a period of 3 months from the date of offer letter. On receipt of advice to offer land from OMCs the applicant should submit land offer online and indicate the category under which the land falls (Group 1 or Group 2) on the basis of the confirmatory letter from an advocate (Appendix III B). Upon selection, the selected candidate would be required to submit all the relevant documents pertaining to the land offered along with consent letter in the form of affidavit (Appendix III A) and/or Power of Attorney (Registered), if applicable, along with confirmatory letter from an advocate (Appendix III B). The applicants would be classified into two groups i.e. Group 1 & Group 2 based on the land offered by them. In case the applicant(s) fail to offer alternate land within the specified period, the offer would be withdrawn and application rejected under intimation to the applicant(s) through SMS/e-mail. The applicants would be classified into two groups i.e. Group 1 & Group 2 based on the land offered by them. In case the applicant(s) fail to offer alternate land within the specified period, the offer would be withdrawn and application rejected under intimation to the applicant(s) through SMS/e-mail. Only one opportunity would be given to the applicant, either for offering land (if applicant has not offered any land along with application form) or for offering alternate land (if the land offered by the applicant is found to be not meeting the laid down criteria during Scrutiny/land evaluation/rejection of land after selection, for applicants who have offered land along with the application). (Emphasis Supplied) 16. It is a specific case of the appellant that identical documents have been taken into consideration and dealerships have been awarded to similarly situated applicants. Further, it is contended that a chance is provided for providing proper documentation in case there is any defect in the documentation as provided by the applicant. We notice that Note 2 under clause 4 of the brochure specifically provides for one opportunity to the applicant for offering alternate land if the land offered by the applicant is not meeting the laid down criteria during scrutiny/land evaluation/rejection of land after selection, for applicants who have offered land along with the application. 17. In the instant case, the applicant had offered land which was found not suitable, but no opportunity was granted to him to provide alternate land. Moreover, the respondents are unable to rebut the contention of the appellant that mortgage/lease deeds of the same nature as the one produced by the appellant have been accepted by the respondents and dealership granted accepting the same. 18. In the above circumstances, we are of the opinion that the rejection of the appellant's application and the relegation of his application to Group-3 without giving him an opportunity to rectify the defects, if any, was completely impermissible and against the provisions of the brochure. 19. In the above view of the matter, we are of the opinion that the dismissal of the Writ Petition without considering the contentions raised by the writ petitioner was erroneous. In the result:- (i) The Writ Appeal is allowed. 19. In the above view of the matter, we are of the opinion that the dismissal of the Writ Petition without considering the contentions raised by the writ petitioner was erroneous. In the result:- (i) The Writ Appeal is allowed. (ii) There will be a direction to the respondents to grant an opportunity to the appellant to produce documentation to show that he was eligible for participation in the selection process as a Group-1 applicant. (iii) If such documentation is produced within two weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment, the same shall be considered and appropriate action shall be taken and intimated to the appellant within four weeks thereafter. Pending Interlocutory Applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.