Prateek Nagesh Jayant Vs State of Chhattisgarh

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Revenue Department Mahanadi Bhawn Mantralaya Capital Complex, Nawa Raipur, Atal Nagar District - Raipur (C.G.)

¶10

2 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through District Collector District - Raipur (C.G.)

¶11

3 - Indian Oil Corporation Limited Indian Oil Bhawan G- 9 All Yavar Jung Marg Bandra (East) Mumbai (Maharastra) 400051

¶12

4 - Indian Oil Corporation Limited Through The Regional Manager Raipur Division Indian Oil Corporation Limited, Indian Oil Bhawan, Rajeev Gandhi Marg Vip Road Telibandha Raipur (C.G.)

¶13

5 - Indian Oil Corporation Limited Through Divisional Retail Sales Head Raipur Divisional Office Indian Oil Bhawan Rajeev Gandhi Marg Vip Road Telibandha Raipur (C.G.)

¶14

... Respondent(s)

¶15

For Petitioner	:	Mr. Shubhank Tiwari, Advocate
For State/Resp. No. 1 & 2	:	Mr. Akhilesh Kumar, Govt. Advocate
For RespondentNo.3 to 5	:	Mr. Anand Shukla,Advocate

¶16

Digitally signed by PRAVEEN KUMAR SINHA Date: 2025.11.14 11:29:54 +0530

¶17

2 / 10

¶18

SB: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge

¶19

Order on Board

¶20

10/11/2025

¶21

1.The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking following reliefs:

¶22

“A That, the Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ/writs, order/orders, direction/directions to call for entire records with respect to allotment of Retail Outlet Dealership over the area between KM Stone 56 to KM Stone 68 on SH-20 (Aarang Kharora Road), Raipur (C.G.).

¶23

B . That, the Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ/writs, order/orders, direction/directions to Quash/Set-aside the Ann. P/1 (Order/Communication Letter dated 19.10.2024) which was passed on the basis of earlier Site Inspection Report dated 18.07.2024 and to consider the candidature of the Petitioner after Inspecting the Site/Offered Land again strictly as per accordance with law and within stipulated period of time.

¶24

C . That, the Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ/writs, order/orders, direction/directions to direct the Respondent No. 3, 4 & 5 to visit the Site/Offered Land and thereafter allot the Petrol Pump in favour of Petitioner after following due procedure of law.

¶25

D . That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ/writs, order/orders, direction/directions to direct the Respondent Authorities to pay the legal cost and expense from the Respondent Authorities.

¶26

E . Any other relief which may be deemed fit by this

¶27

3 / 10

¶28

Hon'ble court just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be provided in favor of the petitioner. ”

¶29

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that pursuant to advertisement issued by respondent No.3/Oil Company for Selection of Dealers for Regular & Rural Retail Outlet in different locations within State of Chhattisgarh, petitioner has submitted an application for Location No.359 mentioned in the advertisement which is in between KM Stone 56 to KM Stone 68 on State Highway -20 between Aarang - Kharora Road. The said location was reserved for SC candidates. Petitioner submitted an application as Group-3 candidate as mentioned in Clause 4 (vi) of Brochure (with regard to eligibility criteria for individual applicants- proprietorship/ partnership). As no eligible candidate was found by respondent No.3 in Group-1 and Group-2 candidates, therefore, claim of petitioner was considered and according to Brochure issued by respondent No.3, petitioner has submitted documents of his ownership land which was purchased by him subsequent to issuance of advertisement on 15.05.2024. In the sale deed there is no mention of crossing of any electricity line/HT line from the land purchased and offered by petitioner for establishment of retail outlet (petrol pump). When the land offered by petitioner was inspected by Committee/officials of respondent No.3, they have prepared the report pointing out that electricity line is crossing in front of land of petitioner and therefore this land is not suitable for establishment of retail outlet (petrol pump). Petitioner thereafter approached the officials of Electricity Department (CSPDCL), submitted an application and got shifted electricity line crossing in front of land of petitioner and informed the authority/officials of respondent No.3 telephonically. However, it subsequently came to knowledge of petitioner that his candidature was

¶30

4 / 10

¶31

rejected vide e-mail dated 26.09.2024. Action of rejecting candidature of petitioner holding him to be ineligible is highly arbitrary and unreasonable in the facts of case. Petitioner thereafter has submitted a representation before the Grievance Redressal Forum as provided in the Brochure on 04.10.2024. However, the Grievance Redressal Forum only considering the report of Land Evaluation Committee (in short “LEC”) has dismissed the representation. Hence, this writ petition.

¶32

On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents- Oil Company opposes submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner and would submit that Oil Company has proceeded for allotment of retail outlet (petrol pump) strictly in accordance with provision/clauses of Brochure- Selection of Dealers for Regular & Rural Retail Outlets June 2023. He contended that applications were invited from candidates for advertised locations. After completion of last date of submission of applications, answering respondent finds that no person falling in Group-1 has submitted application; 2 candidates have submitted applications in Group-2 category and 10 candidates submitted applications in Group-3 category. According to procedure as prescribed in Brochure, applications submitted in Group-1, 2 & 3 are to be considered in light of its sequence i.e. Group-1, Group-2 and Group-3 . When no eligible candidate was found in Group-1, applications submitted by candidates in Group-2 were considered. However, they were found to be ineligible and thereafter notice was issued on 22.02.2024 to candidates under Group-3 for submitting relevant documents of having ownership land or having the Firm Offer for a suitable piece of land for purchase or long term lease for a period of 19 years and 11 months. Petitioner who submitted application in Group-3 had offered ownership land by way of submitting registered sale deed dated

¶33

5 / 10

¶34

15.05.2024. Upon receiving documents with respect to ownership land of petitioner, according to norms and procedure as prescribed in Brochure, land of petitioner was inspected by team of officers of respondent- Oil Company and they found that in front of his land, 33 KV electricity line was passing and submitted its report. After receipt of report, to clarify, the officials of respondent No.3- Oil Company wrote letter to officials of Electricity Department (CSPDCL) seeking clarification and opinion, upon which, officials of CSPDCL vide letter dated 3^rd September 2024 (Annexure R-3/2) intimated that 33 KV line is passing by the side of road and according to diagram mentioned therein, it is crossing in between the plot offered by petitioner and road and further, LT line of 440 Volts is also crossing over portion of land offered by petitioner. Referring to clauses in Brochure, it is submitted that eligibility and suitability of land for establishment of retail outlet (petrol pump) is to be considered at the time of submission of application or submission of offer of land by Group-1 candidates or Group -2 candidates as may be. Petitioner being Group-3 candidate has offered his ownership land after May 2024 and, therefore, it is for Oil Company to consider whether the land offered by petitioner was suitable for establishment of retail outlet or not. He contended that on the date of inspection by team of officials of Oil Company, crossing of 33 KV electricity line was found and, therefore, according to Clause 14 (I) of Brochure/Criteria fixed for allotment of retail outlet, petitioner was found ineligible and his land to be not suitable for establishment of retail outlet and has rejected candidature of petitioner vide letter dated 26.09.2024. There is no arbitrariness or unreasonableness in the decision taken by respondent Oil Company. He further submits that according to notice issued by respondent-Oil Company dated 22.02.2024, within period of 3 months candidate falling under Group-3 has to offer the ownership land or Firm Offer

¶35

6 / 10

¶36

for a suitable piece of land for purchase or long term lease for a period of 19 years and 11 months, which expired on 22.05.2024. Claim of the petitioner, that he got the hurdles removed from his offered land in month of September 2024 and therefore he became eligible, in view of the timeline fixed and clauses of Brochure, is not acceptable. Writ petition is devoid of substance. In support of his contentions, he relies upon decision of Division Bench of Rajasthan High Court in case of Virendra Singh Rathore Vs. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited (BPCL) , Mumbai reported in AIR 2023 Raj. 134 .

¶37

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the documents annexed along with writ petition.

¶38

Undisputedly, petitioner had submitted application for Site No.359 of the advertisement issued by respondent No.3 on 28.06.2023. It is also not in dispute that location is reserved for SC candidate. In clause -4 of Brochure, illegibility criteria for individual applicants- proprietorship/partnership is specified and under Clause 4 (vi), land (applicable to all categories) is also specified. Undisputedly, petitioner submitted his application as Group -3. Relevant portion of Clause 4 (vi) is extracted below for ready reference :

¶39

“(vi) Land (Applicable to all categories):

¶40

The applicants would be classified into three groups as mentioned below based on the land offered or land not offered by them in the application form:-

¶41

x x x x x x

¶42

Group-3: Applicants who have not offered land in the application. Only applicable for locations advertised under SC/ST category.

¶43

7 / 10

¶44

Applications under Group 3 would be processed/advised to offer land (Annexure - D) only in case no eligible applicant is found or no applicant get selected under Group -1 & Group-2.

¶45

In case land offered by all the applicants under Group 1 & Group 2 is found not suitable/not meeting requirements, then these applicant/s under Group - 1 & Group - 2 along with applicants under Group 3 (who did not offer land along with application) would be advised by the OMCs to provide suitable land in the advertised location /stretch, within a period of 90 days from the date of issuance of intimation letter to them through SMS/e-mail. In case the applicant fails to provide suitable land within the prescribed period, or the land provided is found not meeting the laid down criteria, the application would be rejected.

¶46

x x x ”

¶47

The above extracted portion of Group-3 clearly mentions that in case applicant fails to provide suitable land within the prescribed period, or the land provided is found not meeting the laid down criteria, the application would be rejected. Clause 4 (o) further provides that- “it should be the responsibility of the applicant to ensure that as on date of application : there is no HT line (> 11 KV) crossing the offered land. Relevant portion of Clause 4 (o) (v) is extracted below for ready reference:

¶48

“ o) It should be responsibility of the applicant to

¶49

ensure that as on date of application:

¶50

x x x x x x

¶51

(v) The offered land falls within the advertised location/stretch.

¶52

8 / 10

¶53

Further, at the time of land evaluation the offered land would also be checked for compliance of the following. The offered land would be accepted only upon meeting the same :-

¶54

(i) There is no HT line (> 11 KV) crossing

¶55

the offered land.

¶56

(ii) For sites on NH, the offered land must meet NHAI norms. ”

¶57

Under Note of that Clause, it is also specifically mentioned that in case it is found at later stage that offered plot is not meeting any of above conditions then in such case offered land would be rejected. The report of Land Evaluation Committee (LEC) is not put to challenge that report suffers from some error or irregularity but it is the case of petitioner that at the time of evaluation of land offered by petitioner, Committee who evaluated the land found that 33 KV electricity line was passing in front of land of petitioner. Claim of petitioner is only that once based on report, 33 KV line got removed at later point of time then respondent- Oil Company could not have rejected candidate of petitioner. In Brochure, under Clause 14 (I) provides for land evaluation, relevant portion of which is extracted below for ready reference:

¶58

“I. Land Evaluation:

¶59

The concerned Divisional / Regional/Territory Office shall inform the provisionally selected candidate thru e-mail/SMS at least 10 days before the day of visit by LEC for site evaluation. In case of no response/non-availability of the provisionally selected applicant, the candidature shall be cancelled under intimation to the provisionally selected candidate through SMS/e-mail.

¶60

9 / 10

¶61

(i) Evaluation of the offered land will be carried out to ascertain land being in advertised area and suitable for development of RO meeting norms. The parameters under which offered land will be evaluated by Land Evaluation Committee for suitability are:-

¶62

Land falls within the advertised area / stretch,

¶63

as on date of advertisement.

¶64

Land dimensions meets requirement after

¶65

leaving Right of Way (ROW) line of the road.

¶66

Land meets NHAI norms (for sites on NH)

¶67

Land has no HT line (>11 KV) crossing

¶68

Land not meeting any of the above parameters will not be considered and will be rejected. ”

¶69

One of the parameters under which offered land will be evaluated by LEC for its suitability is that- "land has no HT line above 11 KW crossing" and further it provides that "land not meeting any of above parameters will not be considered and will be rejected".

¶70

In the facts of case, there is no dispute that in front of land of petitioner and in between the road (State Highway) 33 KW electricity line is crossing and therefore in accordance with requirements as mentioned in Brochure prevailing on the date of submission of application and considering candidature wherein it is specifically provided that suitability of land is to be considered on the date of its offer or application, so far as it relates to case at hand, when petitioner has submitted application in Group-3, it is to be considered on the date of offering of land whether it was suitable or not. Clauses in Brochure are very clear and unambiguous that if on the date of inspection, LEC finds certain shortcomings and not meeting out the criteria as mentioned in Brochure for considering suitability of land, then

¶71

10 / 10

¶72

candidature/application of candidates is to be rejected holding him to be ineligible.

¶73

Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Umesh Chandra Shukla Vs. Union of India & Ors. (AIR 1985 SC 1351), has observed thus:

¶74

“13 ……. Exercise of such power of moderation is likely to create a feeling of distrust in the process of selection to public appointments which is intended to be fair and impartial. It may also result in the violation of the principle of equality and may lead to arbitrariness . The cases pointed out by the High Court are no doubt hard cases, but hard cases cannot be allowed to make bad law. In the circumstances, we lean in favour of a strict construction of the Rules and hold that the High Court had no such power under the Rules. ” ……………...

¶75

11.For the foregoing discussions, in the opinion of this Court, respondent- Oil Company has followed the Brochure/Guidelines which was formulated for allotment of retail outlet dealership and, therefore, I do not find any good ground to interfere with the decision making process of respondent- Oil Company to reject the candidature of petitioner. The writ petition being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed.

¶76

Sd/- Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge

¶77

Praveen

Prateek Nagesh Jayant v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prateek Nagesh Jayant v. State of Chhattisgarh

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

Jwala Singh Khande Vs Smt. Kera Bai

Ali Raza Vs the State of Chhattisgarh

Ali Raza Vs the State of Chhattisgarh

Fareeduddin Khan Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Ramdayal Bhagat Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Devmati Vs Commissioner