Dismissed¶58

Ansika Dubey v. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited

Chhattisgarh HC14 Jul 2025WPC/2608/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Chhattisgarh HC 2025 — maintainability of writ petition — alternative remedy — Clause 18 grievance redressal system in BPCL Brochure for Selection of Dealers for Regular & Rural Retail Outlets — challenge to LOI/NOC for petrol pump at Village Kumharta, Tahsil Darima, District Surguga/Surguja — complaint procedure: Rs.5000 demand-draft fee, 30-day window from draw of lots/bidding, anonymous complaints barred, speaking order required — complaint pending before Collector — writ dismissed with liberty to approach Respondents 1–5 (BPCL) within 15 days — Arvind Kumar Verma, J.

What did the court decide?

No substantive relief; petitioner granted liberty to file grievance application before Respondents No.1 to 5 within 15 days, to be decided by them in accordance with law. ¶58

Ansika Dubey Vs Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited — Chhattisgarh HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No substantive relief; petitioner granted liberty to file grievance application before Respondents No.1 to 5 within 15 days, to be decided by them in accordance with law.

¶58

Issue for consideration

Whether the writ petition challenging the LOI and No Objection Certificate issued in favour of Respondent No.6 is maintainable, given the availability of an alternative grievance redressal remedy under Clause 18 of the Oil Company's Brochure for Selection of Dealers for Regular & Rural Retail Outlets. +1 more

¶57

Court's answer

Clause 18 of the Brochure ('Selection of Dealers for Regular & Rural Retail Outlets') provides a grievance redressal system; since an alternative remedy is available to the petitioner, the writ petition is not maintainable.

¶57

Ratio / Principle

The writ petition is dismissed, with liberty to the petitioner to file her grievance/application before Respondents No.1 to 5 (BPCL authorities) within 15 days; on such filing, the said respondents shall decide it in accordance with law.

¶58

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

WPC No. 2608 of 2025 (High Court of Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur; Arvind Kumar Verma, J.; decided 15.07.2025) — Petitioner challenged the issuance of a Letter of Intent and No Objection Certificate by Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited in favour of Respondent No.6 for a petrol pump at Village Kumharta, Tahsil Darima, District Surguja, alleging breach of the Oil Company's dealer-selection norms, and complained that her complaint before the Collector had yielded no substantive action. Held: Clause 18 of the Brochure 'Selection of Dealers for Regular & Rural Retail Outlets' contains a grievance redressal system (complaint with Rs.5000/- demand-draft fee, 30-day limitation, investigation and speaking-order requirements); an alternative remedy being thus available, the writ petition is not maintainable. Petition dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to place her grievance before Respondents No.1–5 within 15 days, who shall decide it in accordance with law. No statute or precedent cited.

1 / 5

2025:CGHC:33106

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

WPC No. 2608 of 2025

¶6

Ansika Dubey D/o Diwakar Dubey Aged About 24 Years R/o Village Kumharta, Tahsil Darima, District - Surguja (C.G.)

¶7

... Petitioner

¶8

versus

¶9

1 - Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited A Government Of India, Enterprises, Through Its General Manager Ho 12/ ENF Maker Towers Cuffe, Parade Post Box No. 19949, Mumbai Registered Office Bharat Bhawan 4 And 6 Currimbhoy Road Ballard Estate Mumbai (Maharashtra)

¶10

2 - Senior Regional Manager Bharat Petroleum Corpoartion Limited Shahid Veer Narayan Singh Complex Gahdi Chowk Raipur District - Raipur (C.G.)

¶11

3 - General Manager Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited Ho 12/ Enf Maker Towers Cuffe, Parade Post Box No. 19949, Mumbai Registered Office Bharat Bhawan 4 And 6 Currimbhoy Road Ballard Estate Mumbai (Maharashtra )

¶12

4 - Chief Vigilance Officer Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited Ho 12/ Enf Maker Towers Cuffe, Parade Post Box No. 19949, Mumbai Registered Office Bharat Bhawan 4 And 6 Currimbhoy Road Ballard Estate Mumbai (Maharashtra )

¶13

5 - Territory Manager (Retail ) Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited Old Chhattisgarh Housing Board Building Kalpana Vihar, Nehru Nagar Bilaspur (C.G.)

¶14

6 - Amit Jaiswal S/o Gyan Prakash Jaiswal Aged About 42 Years R/o Haridevendam Society Gandhinagar Ambikapur Tahsil Ambikapur District - Surguja (C.G.)

¶15

7 - Collector Ambikapur Surguja, District - Surguja (C.G.)

¶16

... Respondents

¶17

Digitally signed by ASHUTOSH ASHUTOSH MISHRA MISHRA Date: 2025.07.17 10:41:17 +0530

¶18

For Petitioner :	Mr. Anurag Singh, Advocate
For Respondents No.1 to 5 :	Mr. Sourabh Sharma, Advocate
For Respondent No.7/State :	Mr. Praveen Das, Dy. AG

¶19

2 / 5

¶20

(Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma)

¶21

Order on Board

¶22

15/07/2025

¶23

The instant writ petition has been filed challenging the issuance of letter of intent and No Objection Certificate in favour of Respondent No.6 for establishment of Petrol Pump at Village Kumharta, Tahsil Darima, Darima Mainpat Road, District Surguja.

¶24

By way of the instant petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:-

¶25

1] That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to writ/writs, order/orders, direction/directions to respondent No.1 to 5 to cancel LOI executed in favor of respondent no.6 in light of guidelines (Annex.P/8) within a period of one month.

¶26

2] That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for entire records with respect to grant of retail outlet granted to respondent no.6 from office of respondent no. 1 to 5 and respondent no.7.

¶27

3] That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to writ/writs, order/orders, direction/directions to respondent no.7 to decide the complaint (Annex. P/10) and take a final decision on the complaint made by the petitioner within a stipulated period of 1 month.

¶28

4] That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief(s), which is

¶29

3 / 5

¶30

deemed fit and proper in the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case.

¶31

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that while allotting the retail outlet to Respondent No.6 the norms of Oil Company for grant of retail outlet. He would next contend that the petitioner has already made a complaint before the Collector but nothing substantive steps have been taken till date. He would lastly contend that the proposed site is not eligible for retail outlet, therefore, it is prayed that the LOI executed in favour of the Respondent No.6 may kindly be canceled.

¶32

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents oppose the same.

¶33

I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the documents with utmost circumspection.

¶34

From perusal of the documents I have found that as per Brochure, Selection of Dealers for Regular & Rural Retail Outlets there is a provision of grievance redressal system in Clause 18 thereof. Clause 18 of the Brochure reads as under:-

¶35

18. GRIEVANCE REDRESSAL SYSTEM

¶36

Any complaint should be accompanied by a fee of Rs.5000/-, only in the form of demand draft of schedule bank, in favour of the Oil Company. Any complaint received without this fee will not be entertained. The complaint received against the selection including eligibility will be disposed of as under: -

¶37

(i) Complaints received before or after draw of lots/bidding process along with requisite fee of Rs.5000/-, will be kept in record and investigation carried out after

¶38

4 / 5

¶39

successful completion of scrutiny, land evaluation and Field Verification of Credential for the selected candidate only in following cases:-

¶40

General complaints with verifiable facts

¶41

▪ Complaints against selected candidate*

¶42

Selected candidate means the candidate who has completed Field Verification of Credentials successfully and is eligible for issuance of LOI.

¶43

(ii) Any complaint received after 30 days from the date of draw of lots/bidding process/direct selection will not be entertained.

¶44

(iii) Anonymous complaints without verifiable facts will not be investigated.

¶45

(iv) On receipt of a complaint, a letter will be sent by the oil company to the complainant through Registered/Sperd Post, asking him to submit details of allegation with a view to prima facie substantiate the allegations along with supporting documents, if any, within 20 days from date of dispatch of letter. While seeking documents and details, the complainant will be advised that if during the investigations, complaint is found to be false and/or without substance, the Oil Company reserves the right to take action against the complainant as provided under the law and fee forfeited.

¶46

(v) In case a complaint is received against an applicant, who has not been selected the same will be kept in abeyance. In case the LOI against selected candidate is cancelled and the applicant against whom the complaint was received gets provisionally selected subsequently the complaint will only then be investigated.

¶47

(vi) if the complaint is not required to be investigated the fee received will be refunded to the complainant informing that the complaint has not been investigated since the candidate against whom the complaint has been made has not been selected. The fee will be refunded after Issuance of LOA to the selected candidate.

¶48

(vii) In case complaint is received without the requisite fee of Rs.5000/-, or received after 30 days of declaration of results, the complaint would not be entertained and complainant would be advised reasons for the same.

¶49

(viii) OMC will examine response of the complainant and if it is found that the complaint does not have specific and

¶50

5 / 5

¶51

verifiable allegations, the same will be filed and complaint fee will be forfeited. Complainant will be advised accordingly.

¶52

(ix) If a decision is taken to investigate the complaint, decision on the complaint will be taken as under and informed to the complainant: -

¶53

a) Complaints not substantiated: In case the complaint is not substantiated it will be filed and complaint fee will be forfeited. Complainant will be advised accordingly.

¶54

b) Established Complaints:

¶55

In case of established complaint, the complainant will be advised accordingly and suitable action would be taken. In this case the complaint fee collected of Rs.5000/-will be refunded.

¶56

(x) in all cases, disposal of complaint should be in the form of speaking order.

¶57

Therefore from perusal of the same it is crystal that there is an alternative remedy available to the petitioner, therefore, this writ petition is not maintainable.

¶58

Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. However, the petitioner is at liberty to file application for his grievance before the appropriate competent authority i.e. Respondents No.1 to 5 within a period of 15 days from today and on such application being filed, the said Respondents No.1 to 5 in turn shall decide the same in accordance with law. SD/-

SD/-

(Arvind Kumar Verma)

JUDGE

ashu

Ansika Dubey v. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ansika Dubey v. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nari Shakti Sewa Mahila Mandal Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Rajesh Kesharwani Vs the State of Chhattisgarh

Manoj Kumar Diwakar Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Prateek Kumar Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Bhanu @ Ajay Verma Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Jai Mata Di Women Self Help Group- Chouha Vs State of Chhattisgarh