Disposed¶18

Arpit Pratap Singh v. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. Thru. State Head (Retail) Lko.and Another

Allahabad HC1 Apr 2026WRIC/3148/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench), WRIT - C No. 3148 of 2026, decided April 1, 2026 (Shekhar B. Saraf, J. and Abdhesh Kumar Chaudhary, J.). Rejection of candidature for BPCL service-provider contract (COCO RO BP-PURVANCHAL, District Amethi) for non-attachment of last page of application held to be a technical, curable error where application otherwise complete and last page subsequently filed; authorities directed to consider the candidature. Keywords: Article 226; candidature/tender rejection; technical error; curable defect; incomplete application; non-precedential order.

What did the court decide?

Respondent authorities directed to consider the petitioner's application as a candidate, in accordance with law. ¶18

Arpit Pratap Singh vs Bharat Petroleum… — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2026)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

WRIT - C No. - 3148 of 2026

Arpit Pratap Singh

.....Petitioner(s)

Versus

Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. Thru. State Head (Retail) Lko.And Another .....Respondent(s) Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Shailendra Singh Rajawat, Pankaj Kumar Awasthi, Vipul Kumar Mishra Counsel for Respondent(s) : S M Singh Royekwar

¶7

Court No. - 3

¶8

HON'BLE SHEKHAR B. SARAF, J. HON'BLE ABDHESH KUMAR CHAUDHARY, J.

¶9

Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties.

¶10

This is a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, wherein the writ petitioner is aggrieved by an order dated March 11, 2026, whereby the application for candidature of the petitioner for award of contract for service provider for the COCO RO BP-PURVANCHAL, District Amethi, has been rejected on the ground that the last page of the application was not attached, and therefore, the signature and date of the application could not be established.

¶11

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents has vehemently argued that the error is not technical in nature and that the absence of the last page would tantamount to an incomplete application form.

¶12

It is to be noted that the physical copy of the last page was submitted by the petitioner on March 24, 2026.

¶13

In our view, since the application of the petitioner was complete in all other respects, the absence of the last page, which has subsequently been submitted, should not be a ground for complete rejection of the candidature of the petitioner.

¶14

In our view, the error was technical in nature, and therefore, the authorities are directed to consider the application of the petitioner as a

¶15

WRIC No. 3148 of 2026

¶16

¶17

candidate, in accordance with law.

¶18

With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of .

¶19

We make it clear that we have passed the present order in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and the same shall not be treated as a precedent.

¶20

April 1, 2026 cks/-

¶21

(Abdhesh Kumar Chaudhary,J.) (Shekhar B. Saraf,J.)

¶22

Digitally signed by :- CHANDRA KANT SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Arpit Pratap Singh v. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. Thru. State Head (Retail) Lko.and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arpit Pratap Singh v. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. Thru. State Head (Retail) Lko.and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ameer Khalid vs Union of India Thru. Chief Secy. Ministry of External Affairs New Delhi and 2 Others

Vineet Kumar Singh vs U.O.I. Thru. Ministry of External Affairs Thru. Secy. and 2 Others

Victim X in Fir NO.85 of 2025 P.S. Safderganj Barabanki vs State of U.P. Thru. Chief Secy. Lko. and Another

Bharat Jan Gyan Vigyan Samiti (Bvjgvs ) Thru. Secy. Rajendra Singh Yadav and Another vs Nagar Nigam Lko. Thru. Municipal Commissioner Nagar Nigam Lko. and 3 Others

Abu Ubaidh vs Union of India Thru. Prin. Secy. Ministry of External Affairs New Delhi and 2 Others

Vertel Digital Pvt. Ltd. Thru. Authorized Director Shri Ramneek Chopra and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home U.P. Lko. and 3 Others