Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Birla,J.
Heard Sri Madan Mohan, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Prakash Padia for the respondent Corporation and Sri Atma Ram Singh for the respondent no. 1.
Sri Padia has handed down the rejection of the candidature of the petitioner dated 6th March, 2014 which is not under challenge in the present writ petition. The candidature of the petitioner has been rejected on the ground that the land offered by the petitioner is not at the advertised location and is not meeting the IOC requirement.
The petitioner contends that since the land was not treated to be available at the advertised location, the petitioner renewed his offer by mentioning the land in village Khempur being Plot No. 419 and thus the land offered by the petitioner was at the located site.
Sri Prakash Padia on the other hand submits that even assuming for the sake of arguments that the subsequent land offered by the petitioner was in the advertised village, the same is on the strength of a sale deed dated 9th April, 2014. This fact is being asserted on the strength of the documents filed by the petitioner himself namely the no encumbrance report submitted by the lawyer of the Bank, copy whereof has been filed as Annexure 6 to the writ petition. Sri Padia points out that the same document while verifying the status of Plot No. 419 indicates that the petitioner has purchased the land offered on 9th April, 2014. He submits that the requirement under the guidelines as per Clause 6(h)(iii) is as follows:-
"Clause 6(h)(iii). Own means having clear ownership title of the property in the name of applicant/family member(s) of the 'Family Unit' as defined in multiple dealership/distributorship norm or land belonging to parents & grandparents (both maternal and paternal) of the applicant as on the last date for submission of application as specified in the advertisement or corrigendum (if any). In case of ownership/co-ownership by family member(s) as given above, consent in the form of a Notarized Affidavit from the family member(s) will be required."
A perusal thereof would indicate that the land should be possessed by the applicant as on the last date of submission of application at the location as specified in the advertisement. Admittedly in this case the renewed offer made by the petitioner is in respect of the land that was purchased on 9th April, 2014 much after the last date of the application form.
Consequently, the rejection order dated 6th March, 2014 which has not even been challenged in the present writ petition, does not call for any interference even otherwise.
The writ petition is dismissed with the said observation.
Order Date :- 10.7.2014 Sahu