HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION No.12667 of 2010 Date: 17.11.2011 Between: G. Hussenaiah … Petitioner And Indian Oil Corporation Limited Marketing Division A.P.State Rep. by its General Manager at Himyatnagar, Hyderabad and two others … Respondents O R D E R: Heard on 14.11.2011. This writ petition is now being disposed of. The petitioner as well as the third respondent and other applicants applied for appointment of Kisan Seva Kendra Operators in pursuance of notiﬁcation of the ﬁrst respondent dated 27.07.2009 for the location at Palakur Village, Banaganapalle Mandal, Kurnool District. The third respondent had oﬀered his site in Survey Nos.170/2-A and 142/1 for the location of Kisan Seva Kendra. All the applicants were interviewed and on inspection of the site, the third respondent’s site bearing Survey No.142/1 was selected and the third respondent was short listed at No.1, whereas the petitioner at No.2 and another applicant at No.3 in the merit list. The first respondent received a complaint that the third respondent misrepresented about his site and the survey number of his site is in fact 142/3 but not 142/1 and on the said ground of misrepresentation, the candidature of the third respondent, who stood at Serial No.1, was sought to be cancelled. The ﬁrst respondent- Corporation, thereafter, conducted enquiry and after examination of boundaries of the proposed site as per the registered sale deed and the report of the Land Evaluation Committee, the ﬁrst respondent came to the conclusion that there is neither any misrepresentation nor any suppression of fact by the third respondent and consequently the complaint was found not substantiated and was rejected vide orders of the Corporation dated 03.06.2010. The petitioner seeks a mandamus against respondents 1 and 2 for not taking immediate steps to cancel the Letter of Intent issued to the third respondent on the aforesaid ground of suppression. Learned counsel for the petitioner has based his contentions primarily on the No Objection Certiﬁcate issued by the Collector under the Petroleum Rules, 2002, referring to survey number of the proposed site as Survey No.142/3 and not 142/1. Learned counsel for the petitioner would therefore submit that the No Objection Certiﬁcate in fact is in respect of Survey No. 142/3, which is not the site proposed by the third respondent and selected by the ﬁrst respondent Corporation. The learned counsel would therefore submit that it is a clear case of misrepresentation of facts by the third respondent, and as such, in terms of the conditions attached as to the disclosure of the correct information in the application form, the candidature of the third respondent ought to have been rejected. He has placed strong reliance upon the report of the Tahsildar, Banaganapalle, addressed to the Collector, Kurnool, dated 08.03.2010, whereby the Tahsildar conﬁrmed that the site of the third respondent falls in Survey No. 142/3 as per the survey. The aforesaid contention is contested by respondents 1 and 2 as well as the third respondent, who have ﬁled their detailed counter-aﬃdavits. It is stated by the Corporation that the site oﬀered by the third respondent has not been changed and the very same site oﬀered by the third respondent was evaluated by the Land Evaluation Committee, and therefore, there is no suppression or misrepresentation as alleged by the petitioner. The third respondent also contends that Survey No.142 originally admeasures Acs.1.18 cents and it was purchased by one S.Venkatarami Reddy from K.Maddileti Reddy and another on 04.09.1996 and the third respondent has purchased Ac.0.50 cents of land in the above survey number under registered sale deed dated 25.08.2009. He also submitted that the aforesaid registered sale deed mentions the purchase of the land by the third respondent as in Survey No.142/1 and at the time of physical veriﬁcation by the Tahsildar, after the selection of the third respondent by the Corporation on resurvey, it was noticed that the site actually falls in Survey No.142/3. The third respondent, therefore, submits that there is neither any change of boundaries nor identity of the land oﬀered by him and it is only change in survey number on account of subsequent survey that has resulted in the sub-number shifted from 1 to 3. He therefore, denies any misrepresentation as alleged. I have examined the contentions on either side and it is evident from the report of the Tahsildar dated 08.03.2010 itself that the title on the third respondent as well as the location of site including the boundaries as oﬀered at the time of applying as well as found at the time of veriﬁcation for the purpose of issuance of No Objection Certiﬁcate does not undergo any change. It is also clear from the further report of the Tahsildar, Banaganapalli, to the District Collector, Kurnool, dated 24.05.2010 that the boundaries are tallying with the documents and on physical features. It is also mentioned that the petitioner validly purchased Ac.0.50 cents under registered sale deed dated 25.08.2009 by entering Survey No.142/1 in the document. Based on the said report, No Objection Certiﬁcate may be issued mentioning Survey No.142/3, but the fact remains that the Corporation, after selection of the third respondent, in fact sought for No Objection from the Collector, Kurnool also for Survey No.142/1. Thus, even if there is a minor discrepancy in the sub-number, it is evident that the land oﬀered by the third respondent, the land evaluated and selected does not undergo any change and as such there is hardly any case of misrepresentation, fraud or mistake made out by the petitioner. The norms followed and evaluation of land from the standpoint of suitability and selection of such applicant and giving Letter of Intent, cannot be interdicted in this writ petition. The writ petition is liable to be dismissed and accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J Date: 17.11.2011 va