Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:40267-DB Court No. - 40 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 3143 of 2025 Petitioner :- Arun Kumar Patel Respondent :- Union Of India And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Anuj Kumar Shukla,Ashutosh Ganguli Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I.,Komal Mehrotra,Manoj Kumar Singh,Yash Padia Hon'ble Shekhar B. Saraf,J. Hon'ble Kshitij Shailendra,J. 1. Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents. 2. This is a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India wherein the writ petitioner has prayed for the following substantial reliefs: "1. Issue writ order direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 24.12.2024 and 14.12.2024. 2. Issue writ order direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to freshly decide the case of the petitioner considering the facts and legal provisions." 3. The main contention of the counsel appearing for the petitioner is that the petitioner's application form for dealership of retail outlet has been rejected by the respondent authorities on the ground that the lease deed provided by the petitioner was not signed by all the co-owners of the property. Counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted the documents to indicate that even though six people are named in the khatauni, however, there is mutual partition that has been made among these persons by way of an undated memorandum. This document is on a Rs.100/- stamp paper and is notarised. 4. Per contra, counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents submits that the policy is very clear that when a leased property is provided by the applicant, the lease deed should be signed by all the co-owners. 5. In our view, the document that has been produced by the petitioner with regard to mutual partition is having no basis in law and cannot be treated as a proper document to show partition of the property. Furthermore, lease document which has been produced has only one person who has executed the lease deed and other co-owners have signed as approvers in the said lease deed. In our view, the procedure followed by the petitioner in obtaining the lease is not as per the guidelines provided by the respondent corporation. The action of the respondent authority in rejecting the candidature of the petitioner, is accordingly, legal and does not require any interference by this Court. 6. The writ petition is dismissed. Order Date :- 19.3.2025 Kuldeep (Kshitij Shailendra, J.) (Shekhar B. Saraf, J.) Digitally signed by :- KULDEEP SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad