AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
By way of the present writ petition, the petitioner has sought the following reliefs:
"A. By an appropriate writ order or direction, the rejection letter dated 21.03.2019 (Annexure-7) and letter dated 24.04.2019 (Annexure-10) may kindly be quashed and set aside.
B. By an appropriate writ, order or direction, the respondents may kindly be restrained from cancelling the grant of Rural RO Dealership at village Chokri, Tehsil, Railmagra, Distt. Rajsamand to the petitioner.
C. By an appropriate writ order or direction the respondents may be directed to grant one opportunity to the petitioner to submit initial security deposit and required documents for grant of RO Dealership to the petitioner.
D. Any other appropriate writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deems just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner.
E. Writ petition filed by the petitioner may kindly be allowed with costs."
The facts, in brief, are that the petitioner being the sole applicant was selected for the rural retail outlet dealership at location - Village Chokri, Tehsil Railmagra, District Rajsamand. The communications dated 15.01.2019 (Annexures-3 and 4) came to be issued to the petitioner, interalia, requiring her to deposit the initial security deposit, as per the dealership selection guidelines.
As per the communications aforesaid, the petitioner was required to deposit initial security deposit of Rs.40,000/- within a period of 10 days from such communication.
The communication dated 15.01.2019 followed by another communication dated 24.01.2019, requiring the petitioner to submit ISD and other documents, yet the petitioner did not do the needful.
The respondent Corporation sent yet another communication to the petitioner on 25.01.2019, bringing to her notice that she has neither deposited the initial security amount nor has submitted the required documents, however, providing a grace period of 10 days to her to do the needful.
The petitioner did not do anything within such period and thereafter sent a representation dated 13.02.2019 to the respondent Corporation and requested them not to cancel her selection.
It is rather strange, that despite the representation dated 13.02.2019, the petitioner has neither remitted the initial security deposit nor has she furnished requisite documents with the Corporation.
On 18.04.2019, the petitioner iterated the same request to the respondent Corporation, without complying with the conditions of the allotment.
Petitioner's aforesaid representation has been rejected by the Corporation on 24.04.2019, which is impugned in the present writ petition.
Mr. Vikram Singh Bhati, learned counsel for the petitioner, challenging the cancellation of petitioner's selection, vide order dated 24.04.2019, contended that the selection was subject to the final decision of D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.522/2019 (Birbal Ram & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Anr.), which fact was clearly stipulated in the intimation dated 15.01.2019.
He argued that the Division Bench of this Court in the writ petition filed by Birbal Ram had stayed allotment of retail outlet and hence, the petitioner was justified in not remitting the security deposit.
In considered opinion of this Court, notwithstanding the Division Bench order, restraining the respondents from allotting the retail outlet, petitioner was required to carry out atleast her obligation. Having remained in slumber for three months, despite dismissal of the said writ petition (25.02.2019), the petitioner cannot claim any equity or right accruing from the offer letter dated 15.01.2019, which was valid only for a period of 10 days, which too extended for further period of 10 days (vide the communication dated 25.04.2019).
In view of the aforesaid factual backdrop, this Court does not find any merit in the writ petition, for which, it is dismissed.
The Stay Petition No.10437/2019 also stands dismissed.