Smt Varsha Mehta Vs Union of India

3 - Indian Oil Corporation Limited Through Its Director (Marketing), Indian Oil Bhawan, G-9 Ali Yavar Jung Marg, Bandra (East), Mumbai, Maharashtra

¶12

4 - Divisional Head Indian Oil Corporation Limited, Raipur Division, Indian Oil Bhawan, Rajiv Gandhi Marg, Vip Road Telibandha, Raipur (C.G.)

¶13

5 - Divisional Retails Sales Head Indian Oil Corporation Limited, Raipur Division, Indian Oil Bhawan, Rajiv Gandhi Marg, Vip Road Telibandha, Raipur (C.G.)

¶14

6 - Steel Authority Of India Through Director Incharge, Bhilai Steel Plant, Bhilai District- Durg (C.G.)

¶15

	---Respondents
__________________________ For Petitioner	__________________________________ : Mr. Chandresh Shrivastava, Advocate
For Respondent No.1 & 2	: Mr. Tushar Dhar Diwan, Advocate
For Respondents No.3 to 5	: Mr. Anand Shukla, Advocate
For Respondent No.6	: Mr. Vikram Sharma, Advocate

¶16

BALRAM PRASAD DEWANGAN Digitally signed by BALRAM PRASAD DEWANGAN Date: 2025.11.07 16:35:42 +0530

¶17

03/11/2025

¶18

Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu

¶19

Order On Board

¶20

Petitioner has filed this petition seeking following relief (s) :-

¶21

2

¶22

“10.1. The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire record pertaining to the case of the petitioner.

¶23

10.2. The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the impugned orders dated 24.5.2024(Annexure P-1), 02.07.2024(Annexure P-2), 15.07.2024(Annexure P-3), 22.08.2024(Annexure P-4) and 21.10.2024 (Annexure P- 5) issued by respondent authorities.

¶24

10.3. The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent no 4 and 5 to make a request to respondent no.6 for allotment of land on lease and grant RO dealership in favour of petitioner.

¶25

10.4. The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent no 4 and 5 to hold the petitioner eligible and direct them for granting retail outlet dealership to the petitioner.

¶26

10.5. The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent no.1 to make enquiry and take appropriate legal action against the respondent no.4 and 5 for deliberately issuing impracticable advertisements for unlawful gain.

¶27

10.6. Any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper may also be awarded to the petitioner including the cost of the petition.”

¶28

Learned counsel for petitioner submits that respondents No.2 to 5 has published an advertisement (Annexure P-7) on 28.06.2023 for appointment of retail outlet dealers at the location “On Right Hand Side From Talpuri Chowk to Main Gate CISF RTC Bhilai on SH-22 (Durg Patan Road). Petitioner pursuant to letter dated 11.08.2023 (Annexure P-10) and discussion between officials of respondent-Oil Company has submitted her application for appointment of dealership on 22.09.2023. Application of petitioner was accepted and she has been provisionally

¶29

3

¶30

qualified, thereafter, she was asked to submit relevant documents. He contended that the said direction of Respondent-Oil Company asking petitioner to submit relevant document was erroneous in view of the correspondence made between petitioner and Oil Company requesting that according to policy of the Bhilai Steel Plant i.e. respondent No.6, request to allot the land on lease is to be made by Oil Companies only. He contended that at the time of scrutiny of application, earlier two applicants have been declared to be ineligible for want of ownership or lease hold lands, however, application of petitioner was processed further, therefore, dismissing the candidature of petitioner for appointment of dealer subsequently on the ground that petitioner is not holding the land at the advertised location either as owner or on lease hold, is erroneous. Once, the application of petitioner is proceed, petitioner was found to be provisionally selected, therefore, there is legitimate expectation of petitioner for her appointment as retail outlet dealer. Not offering of land by respondent No.6/BSP on lease is due to fault of respondents No.2 to 5 who have not submitted or forwarded any application in this regard to respondent No.6. In support of his contention, he placed reliance upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of State of Jharkhand Vs. Brahmputra Metallics Ltd., Ranchi, reported in AIR OnLine 2020 SC 993 .

¶31

Learned counsel for respondents No.3 to 5 vehemently opposes the submission of learned counsel for petitioner and would submit that advertisement issued by answering respondent (Annexure P-7) is in accordance with the brochure of selection of dealers for regular and rural retail outlets. He contended that in the advertisement, the site/location, in which, the appointment of retail out let dealership is to

¶32

4

¶33

be made is specified. The category is further specified and other eligibility criteria has been mentioned in brochure, published in the month of June, 2023, which is applicable and prevailing. Referring the eligibility criteria in the Clause-4, it is argued that apart from other requirements, there is requirement of land and under Sub-clause (vi) of Clause-4, clause under heading land (applicable to all categories) and pressed upon Group-2 therein. He submits that petitioner has submitted an application in category of Group -II, for which, applicant on the date of submission of application should have firm offer of a suitable piece of land for purchase or long term lease for a period of 19 years 11 months. He also referred to the other condition (i) as specified under Sub-clause (vi) of Clause-4 of the brochure and submitted that requirement of possessing the land as mentioned in category two, should be on or before the date of application and the offer of land should be in the form of affidavit as mentioned in the Appendix-III of the application form. Petitioner does not fulfill the eligibility criteria of having land as owner or any agreement to purchase or of long term lease, therefore,petitioner become ineligible to participate in the further proceedings. The application submitted by petitioner was processed only considering the inputs and information as submitted in her application and in Column No.13 of application, petitioner has disclosed the information that owner of the land is Steel Authority of India Limited and further date has been specified of the date of registration of sale deed/gift deed/lease deed etc. as 21.09.2023 and further khasra number as also the area where the land is said to be located is mentioned. Only on that basis of information, petitioner has been declared to be provisionally selected, however, as per

¶34

5

¶35

requirement under Clause 4 (iv) (e), petitioner was asked to furnish the relevant documents of land, which was not uploaded and only thereafter, petitioner’s candidature was rejected after giving opportunity of uploading the document. There is no error on the part of the respondent Oil Company in considering the application, as it was strictly in accordance with the brochure of the year 2023 for selection of dealers.

¶36

Learned counsel for respondent No.6 would submit that as submitted by learned counsel for petitioner, according to the policy of the Bhilai Steel Plant, the land can be allotted on lease only to the Oil Company and not to the individual and respondents Oil Company has not made any application with respondent No.6.

¶37

I have heard learned counsel for parties and also perused the documents enclosed the writ petition as also the reply.

¶38

Admittedly according to the pleadings made and submission of learned counsel for petitioner, petitioner is not having the ownership land or lease deed executed by any of the authority or person of the land situated at the advertised location. The claim of petitioner is that petitioner has made correspondence earlier i.e. prior to the issuance of advertisement in the year 2020 with the respondent No.6, Bhilai Steel Plant and it is in reply to the letter written by petitioner, petitioner was informed that request can be processed if the Oil Company submits an application. Perusal of letter (Annexure P-6) would show that Bhilai Steel Plant has addressed this letter to Additional Private Secretary to Hon’ble Minister of State for Steel, in which the ground which was analyzed and consider by the authorities/officer of respondent No.6

¶39

6

¶40

and extracted in the letter would show that petitioner wrote a letter mentioning that ‘certain PSU Oil Company is willing to give them dealership of petrol pump’ and on that basis observation is made that once there is a request received from the oil company then the request will be processed as per rules of the company. The basis to file this writ petition i.e. letter dated 27.11.2020 itself is on the erroneous facts as mentioned by the petitioner before respondent No.6. In this petition, there is no specific pleading as to on what point of time, the Oil Companies were intending to give dealership to persons, who are not possessing the land under ownership rights or under lease deed and the Oil Company is to make an application to the authority to execute lease deed in favour of the interested persons. In absence of such specific facts available or the proceedings of the Oil Company, the said submission of the petitioner in the opinion of this Court is not acceptable.

¶41

So far as the submission of learned counsel for petitioner that as application of petitioner is once entertained he has been declared to be provisionally selected candidate and therefore, she is having legitimate expectation of her appointment as dealer is also not sustainable in the facts of the case.

¶42

Perusal of the application would show that petitioner has not submitted the correct facts in the application that she is not possessed the land at the advertised location but in Column -13 of her application, where the description of the land is to be mentioned, the name of Steel Authority of India Limited, Bhilai Steel Plant is mentioned in the column of name of owner of the land/lease holder and in column No.13 there

¶43

7

¶44

is also mention of date of registration of sale deed/gift deed/lease deed, date of mutation, date of notarized affidavit for offer of land as per Appendix-III as 21.09.2023. No such document is enclosed or uploaded along with application at the time when petitioner was asked to upload the relevant documents as per the date as mentioned in the land details.

¶45

It appears that application of petitioner was primarily accepted and processed for next stage consideration only on the basis of the information/inputs submitted by her along with the application in particular Column 13. So far as the dispute as raised in this writ petition of processing her application further, it is the first stage for considering the application based on the inputs/information supplied in the application, the application can be processed for the next stage asking for relevant documents of the description/details as mentioned in the application and accordingly as per submission of learned counsel for respondent Oil Company, the Oil Company has asked to upload the documents of the land as provided under Clause-4 (vi) (e) of the brochure, which the petitioner failed to submit.

¶46

In the aforementioned facts of the case, when the petitioner has not submitted the application with correct description of land, which is required to be disclosed in the application, she would not be permitted to say that once the application of petitioner is processed and therefore, there is legitimate expectation of petitioner for her appointment as dealer. The said submission of learned counsel for petitioner is not acceptable and is repelled.

¶47

8

¶48

As the petitioner did not possess the land, which is the primary requirement and essential eligibility criteria under the brochure, to which the petitioner did not possess, therefore, I am of the view that respondent Oil Company has not committed any error in rejecting the application of petitioner for her appointment as dealer.

¶49

For the foregoing discussions, I do not find any merit in this petition and accordingly it is dismissed.

¶50

Sd/-

¶51

(Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge

¶52

Balram

Smt Varsha Mehta v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Varsha Mehta v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Chandra Kumar Vs Union of India

Smt. Laxmi Chandrakar Vs the State of Chhattisgarh

Shraddhanand Agarwal Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Anpurna Women Self Help Group - Belgahana Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Bulaki Ram Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Rajaram Yadav Vs the State of Chhattisgarh