JUDGMENT AND ORDER : DEVASHIS BARUAH, J. Heard Mr. M. K. Das, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner and Mr. M. Sharma, the learned Standing counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3. I have also heard Mr. R. Talukdar, the learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the Circle Officer, Sipajhar Revenue Circle, Sipajhar as well as for the Senior Sub-Registrar, Mangaldai. PREFACE: 2. The present writ petition has been filed by the Petitioner being aggrieved by the email dated 05.11.2023 issued by the Respondent No.3 whereby the candidature of the Petitioner for the Regular/Rural Retail Outlet Petrol Pump) Dealership in area Khandajan Model High School to Maroi Bijulibari Government High School on NH 15 in the district of Darrang was rejected as a Group-1 Candidate. BRIEF FACTS: 3. The brief facts which led to the filing of the present writ petition are that an advertisement was issued on 28.06.2023 by the Respondent No.2 regarding appointment of Regular/Rural Outlet (Petrol Pump) Dealership at various locations in the State of Assam. In the said advertisement, it was provided that the application for Retail/Rural Outlet Dealership along with online payment of non-refundable application fee should be submitted online by 27.09.2023. The Petitioner was interested in the Retail Outlet Dealership for the location namely Khandajan Model High School to Maroi Bijulibari Government High School on NH-15 in the District of Darrang. The Petitioner having entered into a registered lease deed on 22.09.2023 with Mr. Brajen Deka and Mr. Bhabindra Deka in respect to a plot of land admeasuring 1 Bigha covered by Dag No. 1045 of Periodic Patta No.370 located at Village Bijulibari under Mouza Lokrai within Sipajhar Revenue Circle in the district of Darrang, Assam for a period of 20 years applied as a Group-1 candidate submitted the application on 24.09.2023. 4. At this stage, it is pertinent to take note of that while submitting the application through the online mode, the Petitioner had uploaded the lease deed dated 22.09.2023 with an incorrect page-3. The said page-3 of the lease deed dated 22.09.2023 stipulated that the period of lease shall commence with effect from 01.04.2024. 5. The records further reveal that vide an email dated 19.10.2023, the Petitioner was informed that as the Petitioner was the sole eligible applicant in the location under Group-1, the Petitioner was provisionally selected. The said page-3 of the lease deed dated 22.09.2023 stipulated that the period of lease shall commence with effect from 01.04.2024. 5. The records further reveal that vide an email dated 19.10.2023, the Petitioner was informed that as the Petitioner was the sole eligible applicant in the location under Group-1, the Petitioner was provisionally selected. It was further mentioned that the said intimation was a preliminary intimation towards the Petitioner's provisional selection for the Retail Outlet Dealership. However, the award of the dealership was subject to compliance of the terms and conditions of the corporation in that regard. 6. Further to that, on the same date, vide another communication dated 19.10.2023, the Petitioner was asked to remit online Rs.50,000/- towards initial security deposit and upload the set of self-attested documents as specified in the said communication so that the application for award of the Retail Outlet Dealership could be processed. 7. The documents which were referred to in the said communication dated 19.10.2023 inter alia included the copy of the land document in support of ownership/leasehold rights. It was also informed that verification of all self-attested photocopies shall be done with the original documents during Field Verification of the Credentials. 8. Pursuant thereto, the Petitioner uploaded the various documents in terms with the communication dated 19.10.2023. Subsequent thereto, on 05.11.2023, the Petitioner was informed vide an email that the candidature of the Petitioner had not been found eligible for Retail Outlet Dealership on the basis of the documents submitted by the Petitioner. The reasons were also assigned to the effect that Clause-1 of the lease deed dated 22.09.2023 stipulated the commencement of the period of lease from 01.04.2024, which is the date of future which meant that the Applicant had no ownership/leasehold rights on the land on the date of the application and hence was found not eligible. 9. The Petitioner therefore submitted a representation on 08.11.2023 stating inter alia that the registered lease deed dated 22.09.2023 commenced from 22.09.2023 and not from 01.04.2024. It was further mentioned that initially in the agreement, it was mentioned as 01.04.2024 but at the time of registration, the said aspect was corrected and put as 22.09.2023. The said aspect having not been considered, the Petitioner had approached this Court by filing the present writ petition on 01.12.2023. 10. It was further mentioned that initially in the agreement, it was mentioned as 01.04.2024 but at the time of registration, the said aspect was corrected and put as 22.09.2023. The said aspect having not been considered, the Petitioner had approached this Court by filing the present writ petition on 01.12.2023. 10. The records reveal that this Court vide an order dated 04.12.2023, issued notice and passed a limited interim order that though the draw of lots may not be put to hold, but no final decision be taken for allotment of the petrol pump in question till the returnable date. The interim order thereupon has been extended from time to time. 11. The records reveal that an affidavit-in-opposition has been filed by the Respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 on 12.06.2024 wherein the decision to reject the Petitioner's candidature as a Group-1 candidate was justified. It was mentioned that the Petitioner submitted the application online on 24.09.2023. Upon scrutiny of the registered lease deed which was uploaded by the Petitioner, it was seen that the deed was registered before the Senior Sub- Registrar, Mangaldai, Darrang on 22.09.2023 i.e. before the date of submission of the application. However, at Serial No.1 of the deed, at Page No.2, it was stated that the lease deed would commence st from 1 of April, 2024 for a period of 20 years, i.e. 5+5+5+5 years and after the completion of the lease period, lessor can continue the lease with mutual consent of both the parties. 12. It was further mentioned that though the lease deed was registered on 22.09.2023 i.e. before the date of submission of the application, the lease rights would only commence w.e.f. 01.04.2024 i.e. on a future date, which meant that on the date of submission of the application, the Petitioner was not having ownership/long-term lease rights over the offered plot of land. It was further mentioned that one of the essential eligibility criteria in the dealership selection Brochure is that the applicant either has ownership/registered long term lease for a period of 19 years 11 months as on the date of the application. Further to that, it was mentioned that as the Petitioner did not have a registered long term lease as on the date of the application, therefore the Petitioner's application did not fall under Group-1 category. 13. Further to that, it was mentioned that as the Petitioner did not have a registered long term lease as on the date of the application, therefore the Petitioner's application did not fall under Group-1 category. 13. This Court also finds it relevant to take note of an affidavit-in- opposition filed by the Respondent No.5 i.e. Senior Sub-Registrar, Mangaldai on 19.01.2024. In the said affidavit, the Senior Sub- Registrar, Mangaldai has stated that on 22.09.2023, a registered lease deed was executed in his office on the strength of a No Objection Certificate issued by the ADC (Revenue) vide NOC dated 21.09.2023 and in the said lease deed, Mr. Bhabindra Deka and Mr. Brajen Deka were the first party/lessors and the Petitioner was the second party/lessee. It was also found that the NOC and the requisite stamp paper and registration fees were duly paid as per the Act and the Rules. The said authenticated lease deed which was registered before the Senior Sub-Registrar, Mangaldai was enclosed as Annexure B to the said affidavit-in-opposition filed by the Respondent No.5. A perusal of the said authenticated lease deed dated 22.09.2023 reveals at Serial No.1 of Page No.2 that the lease deed would commence from 22.09.2023 for a period of 20 years. Serial No.1 of the authenticated lease deed dated 22.09.2023 being relevant is reproduced herein under: “1. THAT , this LEASE DEED will commence from today, that is 22 nd day of September, 2023 for a period of 20 (Twenty) years that is 5+5+5+5 years and after the completion of the Lease Period the LESSOR can continue the Lease with the mutual consent of both the parties.” 14. An additional affidavit was also filed by the Respondents Nos.1, 2, and 3 on 18.02.2026 whereby the lease deed which was uploaded by the Petitioner was enclosed to the said additional affidavit. A perusal of the uploaded lease deed by the Petitioner as enclosed to the additional affidavit and more particularly at Serial No.1 shows that the lease deed was commenced from 01.04.2024. 15. The instant writ petition was listed before this Court on 13.05.2026. On the said date, this Court directed the Petitioner to produce the original of the registered lease deed dated 22.09.2023 on 18.05.2026. On 18.05.2026, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner had produced the original lease deed dated 22.09.2023. 15. The instant writ petition was listed before this Court on 13.05.2026. On the said date, this Court directed the Petitioner to produce the original of the registered lease deed dated 22.09.2023 on 18.05.2026. On 18.05.2026, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner had produced the original lease deed dated 22.09.2023. From a perusal of the said original lease deed, it is seen that the Clause at Serial No.1 of the lease deed stipulates that the lease would commence from 22.09.2023. SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE LEARNED COUNSELS FOR THE PARTIES: 16. Mr. M. K. Das, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner submitted that the Petitioner inadvertently uploaded the discarded Page No.2 of the lease deed. The learned counsel submitted that in actuality, the registered lease deed, as would be seen from the materials on record as well as the original document, would show that the lease commenced from 22.09.2023 prior to the submission of the bid by the Petitioner. He also referred to Clause 4(vi)(b) of the Brochure for selection of dealers for regular and rural retail outlets of the Indian Oil Corporation wherein it is mentioned that the provisionally selected candidate would be provided 21 days' time from the date of intimation through SMS/email to make suitable amendment/addendum to the lease agreement and submit the same to the concerned OMC. He further submitted that the basis on which the Petitioner's application as a Group-1 candidate was rejected was not there inasmuch as, the registered lease deed in question dated 22.09.2023, categorically mentioned that the lease would commence on 22.09.2023 itself. 17. Mr. M. Sharma, the learned Standing counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent Nos. 1, 2, and 3 submitted that certain deficiencies are not rectifiable. In that regard, he referred to Clause 23 of the Brochure wherein the list of non-rectifiable deficiencies in the application have been mentioned. In that regard, he had specifically referred to Sub-Clause (g) which stipulates that group of land as declared by the applicant in the application cannot be rectified. In that regard, he referred to Clause 23 of the Brochure wherein the list of non-rectifiable deficiencies in the application have been mentioned. In that regard, he had specifically referred to Sub-Clause (g) which stipulates that group of land as declared by the applicant in the application cannot be rectified. The learned Standing counsel for the Respondent Nos.1, 2, and 3 further referring to the second part of Clause 4(vi)(b) of the Brochure submitted that the provisionally selected candidate would be provided 21 days’ time from the date of intimation through SMS/email to make suitable amendment/addendum to the lease agreement only in a case where the lease agreement for the land offered by the provisionally selected candidate did not have a provision of sub-lease. ANALYSIS AND DETERMINATION: 18. A perusal of the impugned order dated 05.11.2023 shows that the rejection of the Petitioner's candidate as a Group-1 candidate was on account of Clause No.1 of the lease deed stipulating that the commencement of the lease to be w.e.f. 01.04.2024 and the reason for doing so is on account of the fact that as on the date of submission of the application by the Petitioner, the Petitioner did not have a long term lease of 19 years 11 months. However, from a perusal of the materials on record including the affidavit filed by the Respondent No.5 and the original registered lease deed dated 22.09.2023 would show that the period of lease would commence from the date of the execution and registration of the lease deed i.e. on 22.09.2023. 19. Under such circumstances, it is therefore the opinion of this Court that the defect in question which the learned Standing counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent Nos. 1, 2, and 3 had submitted to be non-rectifiable is misconceived inasmuch as, the original document categorically mentioned that the lease would commence from 22.09.2023. 20. This Court also finds it very pertinent to mention that in the list of non-rectifiable deficiencies in the application which is mentioned at Clause No.23 of the Brochure, there is no mention that a wrongly uploaded document would result in rejection. Rather, a perusal of the Brochure would show that in spite of documents being uploaded, there would be a mandatory verification of the original document and if the original document is not placed during scrutiny within the stipulated time, the application would be rejected. 21. Rather, a perusal of the Brochure would show that in spite of documents being uploaded, there would be a mandatory verification of the original document and if the original document is not placed during scrutiny within the stipulated time, the application would be rejected. 21. Under such circumstances, it is therefore the opinion of this Court that the defect in uploading the wrong page in respect to the registered lease deed dated 22.09.2023 which being an inadvertent error was a curable defect and as such, the Respondent Nos. 1, 2, and 3 ought to have considered the said aspect when the representation was duly submitted by the Petitioner. CONCLUSION: 22. Considering the above, the instant writ petition therefore stands disposed of with the following observations and directions: (i) The impugned rejection of the Petitioner's candidature as a Group-1 candidate vide the email dated 05.11.2023 stands set aside and quashed. (ii) The Respondents Nos. 1, 2, and 3 are therefore directed to proceed with the evaluation of the Petitioner’s application by taking into account the original registered lease deed dated 22.09.2023. (iii) Interim order passed earlier stands vacated. (iv) There shall be no order as to costs.